Queue stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'No sensitive data,' indicating privacy concern. However, it does not disclose other traits like idempotency, caching, or whether the data is real-time. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated. Overall adequate but missing some detail.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add a critical note about data sensitivity. Every word is necessary; no redundancy or filler. It is optimally sized for an agent to quickly understand the tool.

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, the description must explain return values, which it does thoroughly: job counts by status, total, age of oldest queued job, and active configuration. This covers all expected outputs for a queue health tool. No gaps are apparent given the tool's simplicity and the absence of parameters.

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 has no parameters (100% schema coverage by default). The description adds no parameter info because none is needed. The tool's purpose is fully explained without requiring parameter elaboration, and the baseline of 3 is exceeded due to the simplicity and clarity.

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 tool returns queue health metrics including job counts by status, total, age of oldest queued job, and active configuration. The verb 'Return' and specific resource 'queue health' make purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes from sibling tools (cancel_job, get_job, list_jobs, submit_job) which focus on individual jobs or operations.

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 implies usage for obtaining an overview of queue health but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_jobs or get_job. No when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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