processing_queue

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

The description adds real behavioral context not present in annotations: it does not dispatch model requests, so it is cheap/side-effect-free from a model-cost perspective. However, the annotation readOnlyHint=false sits awkwardly with a 'Show' verb, and no return shape, scope, or pagination behavior is 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?

A single tight sentence with the key scope qualifier front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than maximally informative.

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?

For a low-complexity query tool this covers the gist, but with no output schema the description should say more about what 'progress' contains (counts, statuses, per-source breakdown) and the parameters are entirely unexplained. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two parameters (projectId required, sourceId optional), and the description supplies no meaning for either. It does not explain what projectId vs sourceId select or that sourceId narrows the view, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Show saved page-processing progress') and adds a distinguishing clause ('without dispatching model requests') that separates it from the processing siblings like page_process/pages_process. It is clear what the tool reports, though it does not name the alternative tool outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'without dispatching model requests' clause hints that this is a status-check rather than a trigger, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative (e.g. page_process, processing_unblock) is given. An agent can infer intent but must guess at the boundary.

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