queue_response

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description provides meaningful behavioral detail: matching is substring-based, rules are evaluated in registration order, and the first match wins. It does not mention lifecycle concerns like whether registering overwrites an existing rule or what happens when no rule matches, but the core side effects are disclosed.

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?

Two concise sentences pack the essential behavior: registration, matching semantics, and rule ordering. The most important detail (first match wins) is placed at the end, but the entire description is short enough that nothing is buried.

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 two-parameter registration tool, the description covers the necessary operational semantics: how matching works and how multiple rules are reconciled via ordering. It does not explain what happens when no rule matches or how rules are cleared, but those concerns are plausibly handled by sibling tools and are not required to invoke this one 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 schema already documents both parameters completely, so the description does not need to repeat their meanings. The description adds the key semantic that `match` is searched within the request's `script` field OG `response` is the sent payload, which lightly reinforces the schema without significantly expanding it.

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 states a specific action ('Register a canned response') and clearly defines what the rule does: any request whose `script` field contains `match` receives `response`. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with sibling tools like set_default_response, which would remove any ambiguity, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, such as set_default_response or clear_rules. The description explains the mechanic but not the context that would help an agent decide between registration-based matching and a default fallback.

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