ae_get_render_queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the pure function. It doesn't clarify what 'state' encompasses, whether the operation is strictly read-only with no side effects, what the return payload contains, or whether it reflects live queue data. The verb 'Get' weakly implies non-mutation, but the absence of any behavioral detail leaves the agent guessing.

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?

A single 11-word sentence with zero wasted text. The verb leads, the resource follows, and there is no redundant phrasing. For a parameterless getter, this level of economy is ideal.

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?

The tool's complexity is low (0 params, no annotations, no output schema), which lowers the completeness bar. The description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, since there is no output schema, 'current state' is the agent's only clue about the return value, and it is ambiguous — the agent cannot predict whether it receives item names, statuses, progress percentages, or queue length.

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 the description has nothing to add beyond the schema. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, 4 is appropriate — the schema already documents everything an agent needs about parameters (there are none).

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('After Effects render queue'), making the tool's function clear. It distinguishes itself from render-queue siblings like ae_add_to_render_queue, ae_start_render, and ae_clear_render_queue, which perform mutations rather than reads. However, 'current state' is somewhat underspecified — it doesn't say whether that means queued items, their render status, progress, or settings.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or how it fits into a render workflow (e.g., polling before/after ae_start_render). An agent must infer its role from the name and siblings.

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