queue_pause

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the pause is fleet-wide and not scoped to the tenant, which is a potentially surprising side effect. It also clearly states the effect on workers. It does not mention what happens to in-flight tasks or whether the operation is idempotent, but for a pause action this is a solid disclosure.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is conveyed first, followed by a critical scope note. Every word earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick scanning.

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 absence of parameters and output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it does and its fleet-wide scope. It could go deeper on edge cases like side effects on running tasks or permission requirements, but for a simple pause tool, it is nearly complete.

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, so the schema is fully covered. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Per rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, which is appropriate here.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Pause', the resource 'scan queue', and the specific effect 'stops workers from picking up new tasks'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like queue_status (monitoring) and queue_resume (opposite action). The scope note further clarifies what the tool does.

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 note about being fleet-wide and matching YADS's dashboard pause behavior gives important context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the scope clarification helps an agent decide whether to call this versus a tenant-scoped operation. The lack of explicit 'when not to use' is the only gap, so 4 is appropriate.

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