Fetch human instructions from the Studio UI

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the responsibility of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the tool consumes/clears the queue by default, that the peek parameter avoids consumption, that the UI reflects the pickup, and that changes hot-reload. This is thorough.

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 efficient and front-loaded, with each sentence serving a purpose. It loses a point for slight verbosity around the hot-reload note, though that detail is useful for an agent deciding how to act on instructions.

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?

The description is complete for a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema. It covers purpose, triggers, consumption behavior, parameter impact, and even what to do with the returned instructions, making it fully actionable.

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?

While the schema already describes both parameters, the description adds meaningful context: peek is explicitly tied to not consuming the queue, and the default port is implied. It clarifies the impact of the peek flag beyond the schema's simple 'Read without consuming'.

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 identifies the tool with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('pending instructions from the Studio UI'). It even includes trigger phrases in English and Japanese, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on the human-instruction queue.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: when the user says 'check the studio notes' or after opening riv_studio. It also advises follow-up actions (riv_edit/riv_create), but it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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