autoflow_get_queue

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source. The verb 'inspect' suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no modifications or side effects occur. The behavioral trait is implied rather than disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, compact sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and the returned information without redundancy. It is well-structured and immediately scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (active job, pending jobs, recent history). It provides sufficient context for an agent to decide whether to call the tool and what to expect from the response.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially high. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none, which is appropriate. The baseline score of 3 applies as no additional parameter explanation is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Inspect' and the specific resource 'current status of the Autoflow sequential job queue', enumerating the aspects covered (active job, pending jobs, recent history). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like autoflow_status, which likely reports overall status rather than queue details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for checking queue details but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., autoflow_status) or provide any context for selection. Basic guidance is inferred from the verb, but explicit direction is missing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.