flow_queue_reset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the action is 'forceful' and targets stuck jobs, implying a destructive/resetting behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., loss of queued jobs, irreversibility, or required permissions), which are important for a reset operation.

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 long, with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds valuable usage context without any fluff or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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, zero-parameter tool, this description covers the purpose and the specific situation. There is no output schema, and the tool's return behavior is not described, but for a queue reset, the main point is the action itself. A small note about consequences (e.g., pending jobs may be cleared) would make it more complete, but it's adequate as is.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object. Per the rubric, 0 params is a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies no configuration is needed, so no additional parameter explanation is necessary.

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 action ('Forcefully reset the job queue') and the specific resource (the job queue). It also provides a concrete scenario (job stuck in 'running' state blocking others), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like flow_queue_status that likely just query status.

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 states when to use the tool: 'if a job is permanently stuck in "running" state and blocking other generations.' This gives clear context, though it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives. Still, the use case is well-defined.

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