get_acd_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a state read operation and names the returned dimensions (queued calls and operator statuses), but it does not explicitly cover permissions, exact return shape, or any other behavioral constraints.

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 short, front-loads the action, and contains no filler; the parenthetical adds a compact clarification of the queue state. It could be improved with explicit usage guidance rather than more text.

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 one-optional-parameter state query, the description is minimally adequate and clarifies what 'state' means. However, since there is no output schema, some return-structure details such as counts, arrays, status codesses, or empty-result behavior are left unspecified.

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 single parameter is already fully described in the schema, including filtering by ID/list/'any' and the default of all queues. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action and resource: retrieve the state of Voximplant ACD queues, and it gives concrete meaning for that state: calls in queue and operator statuses. It is distinguishable from list-type tools like get_sq/queues by the 'state' focus, though it does not explicitly name a competing sibling.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_sq_state, get_queues, or get_call_history, and no prerequisites or conditions are mentioned. The intended use is only inferable from the name and brief description.

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