Take work from the queue

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: a 30-minute exclusive lease with expiry and requeue semantics, the fact that an empty queue returns no items, the exact shape of the response (brief plus item fields), and an explicit prompt-injection warning about page content. These are exactly the behavioural traits annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false) cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the lease rule before the follow-up workflow, and every sentence carries information. It is dense, with the return-value enumeration slightly packed into one long sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (id, url, title, kind, category_guess, shared_with) and the accompanying brief. Combined with lease duration, empty-queue behaviour, and the next step, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema (1–10, defaults to 5), so the schema carries the load. The description never mentions batching at all, so it adds nothing on parameter meaning beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — lease (not fetch) unsummarised links — and immediately scopes it with a parenthetical about login-walled posts the cheap path could not read. This clearly separates it from siblings like driftnet_get and driftnet_search, which retrieve rather than reserve work.

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?

Gives an explicit end-to-end workflow: lease, open with your own browser/video tools, identify the tool, then call driftnet_enrich. It also names the condition that brings items back to the queue (expired leases). It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling (e.g. driftnet_get for already-summarised links), so it is strong but not a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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