manage_queue

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the exact destructive scope: clear drops ALL pending prompts, delete drops specific prompt_ids, and interrupt stops the running prompt. It also discloses side effects such as 'free' releasing cached VRAM/RAM and unload_models=True unloading models, plus the ownership guard for prompts queued by other sessions.

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 dense but extremely information efficient, with every phrase adding essential detail. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and action list, then covers safety constraints. No filler or redundant statements appear.

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?

Given the tool's complex multi-action behavior, destructive annotations, and 4 parameters, the description is complete: it covers all actions, gating requirements, session ownership semantics, confirmation flow, and memory/model side effects. An output schema exists, so return-value description is not required.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: the 'action' enum values are all described, 'prompt_ids' context is established via 'delete (drop given pending prompt_ids)', 'confirm' is explained via gating and user agreement, and 'unload_models' is explicitly tied to model unloading. Every parameter receives meaningful semantic explanation.

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's purpose: 'Inspect or manage the instance's run queue' and enumerates distinct actions. It is specific about the resource and verb, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_run_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 provides useful guidance about when actions are allowed, noting that clear/delete/interrupt are 'gated when they'd discard prompts this session didn't queue' and that 'confirm=True' is needed once the user agrees. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to choose a sibling tool instead, but the action-by-action breakdown gives clear context.

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