Get preservation queue statistics

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it discloses the admin authentication requirement, the 403 response for non-admins, and that counts are instance-wide. This fully informs the agent about access control and scope.

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?

Five sentences, well-structured with main purpose first, use case second, and critical auth details in a separate paragraph. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 stat-reporting tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, auth, and scope. It could be improved by mentioning the output format (e.g., integer counts), but it's largely 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist, so it meets the baseline. No additional value 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 what the tool reports (waiting, succeeded, failed counts, search-index backlog) and gives a specific use case (checking if a represerve_link page is archived). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by focusing on queue statistics rather than individual link operations.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool (to check on represerve_link results) and who can use it (admin account only, others get 403). It does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the admin restriction provides clear guidance.

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