Get queue information

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the admin-only authorization requirement and the specific scope of queue state. This is valuable behavioral disclosure without contradicting 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?

Two concise sentences deliver the core scope, the admin restriction, and the primary use case. Every clause earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema present, the description is complete for correct invocation. It adds the auth requirement and the diagnostic use case, so an agent has everything needed to choose and call the tool.

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, so parameter semantics are trivially complete. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details and focuses on what the tool returns, which matches the 100% schema coverage baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 the resource (server-side build queue) and the specific information returned (pending, running, waiting on an agent, agent statistics). It also positions itself relative to list_queued_pipelines, making its role distinct enough for an agent to understand what this tool covers.

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 gives clear usage context: it is admin-only and is part of answering 'why is my build not starting', explicitly paired with list_queued_pipelines. It does not enumerate exclusion conditions or alternative selection rules, but the guidance is sufficient for typical invocation decisions.

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