queue_status

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

No annotations are provided, so description bears full responsibility. It implies read-only behavior but does not disclose whether results are paginated, cached, or if the snapshot is instantaneous. Terms like 'in-flight' and 'pool' are ambiguous.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core purpose. An output schema exists, so return value documentation is not required. Minor missing context about what 'snapshot' entails (e.g., real-time vs. cached) but overall adequate.

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 coves 100% trivially. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as no parameter details are missing.

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?

Description clearly states the tool captures a snapshot of in-flight jobs across all accounts in the pool. It specifies the verb (snapshot) and resource (in-flight jobs across all accounts), distinguishing it from siblings that might focus on single jobs or specific accounts.

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. Siblings like concurrent_state could overlap, but no differentiation is offered.

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