get_queue_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool checks queue status, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what happens when no message is queued, whether the session must exist, or any rate limits. Behavioral details are minimal beyond the basic purpose.

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 concise: a one-line purpose, a use case, and an example. It is front-loaded with the core action. The use of HTML-like tags is non-standard but acceptable. No unnecessary information is present.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a purpose and use case but lacks details on return value (e.g., boolean, status object) or error handling. It is adequate but leaves gaps that could be filled for full completeness.

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 for the single parameter is 100% (description: 'Session UUID'), and the description provides an example with a session ID. The schema already fully defines the parameter, so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 'Check if a message is queued for a session,' which is a clear verb-resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cancel_queue or create_task, though the specific functionality (checking queue status) is distinct enough.

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 use case 'See pending message when executor is busy' gives a clear context for use, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. The usage is implied but not elaborated.

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