task_waiting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns all waiting_on_owner tasks, sorts them oldest first, and includes the exact ask and age in hours. It does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only or describe permission needs, pagination, or rate-limit behavior.

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 a single dense sentence with no wasted wording. It front-loads the resource ('Owner queue') and then adds ordering and returned fields in a compact structure.

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, no-output-schema queue tool, the description is largely complete: it names the task subset, the sort order, and the key returned fields. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating read-only behavior or confirming that the returned 'exact ask' is the primary 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 no parameter semantics to document beyond the baseline. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details that do not exist.

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 a specific resource subset: every waiting_on_owner task. It also states the ordering (oldest first) and payload (exact ask and age in hours), making the tool's purpose clear without needing the schema. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as task_list or task_stale, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'Owner queue' and the waiting_on_owner filter imply when this tool is useful: retrieving tasks blocked on the owner. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this instead of task_list or task_stale, nor are there any stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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