get-recrawl-queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about what the queue represents (submissions from add-recrawl-url and their states), but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or result size limits beyond what the schema states.

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 short sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the routing rules following. The one inefficiency is mild redundancy between 'URLs submitted via add-recrawl-url with their state' and 'the list of URLs already sent for recrawl and their states', which restate the same fact.

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 read-only, fully schema-documented list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, contents, and sibling routing adequately. It could optionally note return ordering or that results are paginated, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so host_id, limit (default 10), and offset are all documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the host scoping ('for a host') and adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (List) and resource (recrawl queue for a host), and parenthetically defines the queue's contents as URLs submitted via add-recrawl-url with their state. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get-recrawl-task and add-recrawl-url, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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 explicit positive usage ('Use when the user wants the list of URLs already sent for recrawl and their states') plus two exclusions with named alternatives: one known task id -> get-recrawl-task, enqueueing -> add-recrawl-url. When/when-not/alternatives are all covered.

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