Queue summary

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, it discloses authorization behavior (non-admins refused on hosted) and a truncation flag in the response, plus what error may appear. That is meaningful operational context an agent cannot infer from the annotations. It does not state rate limits or how partial results are ordered/filled when truncated, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Three sentences, with the admin gate and the metric list front-loaded before the return shape and the list_failures exclusion. Dense but essentially waste-free; the parenthetical field enumeration is the only slightly heavy part.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the top-level shape { queues, active, truncated, error? } and the key fields (project title, attempt, started, lastError). Inner structure of queue entries and truncation behavior are only sketched, which is the remaining gap for a read-only summary 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent arguments and instead spends its words on scope and return shape.

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 resource (queue) and what it reports — waiting/running/retrying counts per pipeline stage plus in-flight jobs — in concrete terms. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_failures ("Failed work is list_failures, not this"), so an agent can pick between them without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a hard prerequisite ("Admins only", hosted non-admins are refused) and routes the failed-job case to list_failures. It stops short of naming other adjacent alternatives (e.g. list_workers, list_failures sibling set) or the situations that make this the right call vs. a project-status tool, but the usage context is clear.

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