queue_queue_push

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

With no annotations, the description must reveal behavioral traits. It does not mention queue existence requirements, error handling, return value, or side effects. The discrepancy between the schema (item as string) and description (any JSON value) creates confusion.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with a helpful prefix '[queue]'. Every sentence adds unique value; no fluff.

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 tool is simple, and the description covers basic purpose and two parameters. However, it lacks context on whether the queue must exist before pushing, any concurrency considerations, or what the output schema contains (despite it being present).

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 0%, so the description is vital. It explains the meaning of 'item' (any JSON value) and 'priority' (default 0, lower more urgent), compensating for missing schema descriptions. The 'name' parameter is left unexplained but is presumably straightforward.

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 verb 'Add' and resource 'item to the queue', and distinguishes from sibling queue tools like pop, peek, list, etc. The clarification that 'item can be any JSON value' and 'priority is used for priority queues' adds specificity.

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 adding items to a queue but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like pop, peek, or create. No 'when not to use' or alternative name is provided.

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