get_sq_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the call's behavior. It suggests a read-only snapshot by saying 'current state' and mentions operators/tasks, but it never explicitly says it performs a read operation, whether side effects exist, what happens for not found queues, or what the response format is. For a tool with zero annotations, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 compact phrase that names the resource and its contents: 'Current state of SmartQueue queue (operators, tasks)'. There is no fluff or irrelevant wording. It is front-loaded and short, though the brevity itself means a small amount of useful elaboration (e.g., a verb) could be included without becoming overlong.

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?

With no output schema defining the response shape, the description must at least convey what happens when the tool is called. It says it returns 'current state (operators, tasks)', but gives zero hints about the structure of those objects, the time horizon (is it real-time?), or any constraints. It also does not clarify the required combination of parameters or typical failure modes. In a set of many state/tool tools, this is underspecified.

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 input schema gives descriptions for all three parameters, and schema coverage is reported as 100%—so the burden lies on the schema, not the tool description. The description adds nothing about how to pass parameters, their meaning, or any dependencies; but because the schema already includes the needed detail, the baseline 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 states the core function: getting the current state of a SmartQueue, and names the data it covers (operators and tasks). It goes beyond a mere restatement of the tool name, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_acd_state, relying on the 'SmartQueue' qualifier to set it apart.

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, which conditions suit it, or what alternatives to prefer. The description is purely a statement of what it returns and omits any comparison to sibling tools such as get_acd_state or get_queues, so an agent must infer suitability from the name alone.

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