wafle_system_queue_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the exact metrics returned (pending/running/done/failed counts, throughput, lag) and the 'current' snapshot nature, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. The second sentence provides practical usage guidance without redundancy.

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?

Given zero parameters, comprehensive annotations, and a simple read-only operation, the description is complete enough. It states what the tool returns and when to use it. A brief note on how the stats relate to sibling queue tools (e.g., wafle_system_queue_failed) would enhance completeness, but it's not essential for this simple 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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. The description correctly focuses on the return value, listing the statistics provided. With no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('background-queue stats'), and explicitly enumerates the metrics provided (pending/running/done/failed counts, throughput, lag). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wafle_system_queue_failed and wafle_system_queue_retry, which handle specific queue operations rather than an overview.

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 provides explicit use cases: "debug 'why didn't my sync finish?' or to spot a backlog." This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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