flow_queue_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. The verb 'check' indicates a read-only operation, and the description enumerates the data returned (active, pending, history). It does not disclose rate limits, ordering, or side effects, but for a simple status-checking tool, the behavioral context is reasonably clear.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by a concise list of what the queue status covers. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the high-level return categories (active, pending, completed, failed history). It could be more explicit about the shape of the response, but given the tool's simplicity, it is substantially 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the single parameter history_limit has its own description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter details, so per baseline rules with high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'check' with the resource 'job queue' and explicitly enumerates what is inspected: active job, pending queue, completed and failed job history. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like flow_status (general status) and flow_account_check (account-specific).

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need to inspect the job queue and its states. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or mention exclusions, leaving the guidance at an implied level.

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