Queue and worker status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe, repeatable nature is known. The description adds behavioral value by saying this tool is meant for polling during long exports and by naming live status dimensions such as running/paused/needsHuman and working-hours windows. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 dense but compact, using a single list to cover many distinct status dimensions and ending with a concrete usage directive. Every listed item adds a different aspect of the status. It is not overly verbose, though the opening phrase 'Everything about the background work' is slightly broad and could be more specific.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the description supplies the key context an agent needs: what data is available, what state categories exist, and when to poll. Since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return semantics at a category level, which it does adequately. It could be more explicit about response structure or event formatting, but nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there is no per-parameter meaning to add. For a zero-parameter tool, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description instead compensates by telling the agent what status categories to expect, which is useful given the absence of an output schema.

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 identifies a read-only status resource by enumerating the exact categories it covers: worker state, task counts, daily caps, working-hours window, sync progress, browser status, and events. The directive 'Poll this to follow long exports' gives a specific verb and use, and the read-only nature distinguishes it from sibling control tools like queue_start, queue_pause, and queue_retry_failed.

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 final sentence provides an explicit trigger condition: poll this to follow long exports. This makes the primary use case clear and separates it from queue-control siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer queue_tasks for detailed task-level information or browser_status for browser-only status, so it lacks formal exclusions or alternative routing.

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