telos.second_level.queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so credibly: 'Read-only, zero-auth, no external side effects' are exactly the traits an agent needs before calling an unknown-namespace tool, and it states the return is a JSON queue. It omits details like whether results are paginated, cached, or scoped by any implicit context.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: trigger, safety profile, return type. Front-loaded with the usage condition and zero filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the safety profile and return type an agent needs to invoke it safely. The main residual gap is that it never defines the domain concept 'second-level flagship', which leaves the agent guessing about the substance of the payload.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level information is missing.

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 names the resource ('second-level flagship queue') and its role ('before registry promotion'), which hints at a sibling boundary with telos.revival.registry. However, the domain jargon 'second-level flagship candidates' is undefined, so an agent cannot confidently say what the queue actually contains or what 'assessing' entails.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when assessing public-safe second-level flagship candidates before registry promotion.' That is a clear when-to-use signal. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so it does not reach a 5.

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