Get stream queue

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the non-obvious behavior of returning empty queues when nothing is queued. It also discloses the exact structure of each stream entry (source, channel name, derived URL), providing valuable context beyond the annotation's safety hint.

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 with no redundant information. The primary purpose and return details are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the alternative tool is named in the second. Every word earns its place with no padding.

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?

The description covers the return format and the empty-queue behavior, which is important. It names the alternative tool for a different query. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting, or any filtering, but for a stream queue tool this is likely acceptable. Given no output schema, the description's detail is fairly complete, though a mention of the locator requirement could be redundant since schema already covers it.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described (url, slug, tournamentId) and the requirement to provide exactly one locator stated in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a tournament's stream queue'), and details the content (streams with source, channel name, derived URL and assigned sets). It also explicitly distinguishes from get_tournament by saying 'For the list of configured streams regardless of queue, use get_tournament,' which clearly differentiates it from a sibling tool.

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 explicitly points to the alternative tool get_tournament for a different need (list of configured streams). It also clarifies that empty queues are returned, implying when to use this for queue status. This provides clear context and an explicit exclusion, making usage straightforward.

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