list_sync_queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. But the description adds zero behavioral context – it doesn't mention that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe any pagination, filtering, or side effects beyond what the annotations imply. With high annotation coverage, the bar is lower, but the description still provides no additional value.

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 extremely short – a title plus an HTTP endpoint. While there is no wasted text, it is under-specified. It doesn't offer a meaningful explanation of what the sync queue is or any context that would help an agent. It is concise but not adequately informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are presumably documented there. However, the description lacks any context about the purpose of the sync queue, how it relates to other sync tools (list_sync, list_sync_items), or what makes this endpoint distinct. For a zero-parameter read operation, it may be minimally adequate, but it fails to fully orient an agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, no properties). According to the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. There is no need for the description to add parameter semantics since none exist.

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 states 'Get Sync Queue' – a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Sync Queue'). However, it doesn't elaborate on what a sync queue is or what the response contains. With siblings like list_sync, list_sync_items, and list_sync_transcode_queue, it lacks differentiation. An agent could reasonably confuse it with list_sync.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Nothing indicates the difference between this and list_sync or list_sync_items, nor does it state any context or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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