agent_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results include postings, reasons, red flags, and an apply-first ordering, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe side effects, authentication needs, or pagination.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core resource, though the lack of a verb slightly reduces immediate clarity.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable sense of what is returned. However, it does not explain how the queue relates to sibling tools like agent_run or job_evaluate, nor does it clarify whether the queue is static or dynamically generated.

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 there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline score of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for an input schema.

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 identifies the resource as postings recommended by the agent and notes they include reasons and red flags, but it lacks a clear action verb such as 'retrieve' or 'list'. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings like jobs_list by emphasizing agent recommendations, but the purpose remains somewhat vague.

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 'apply first, then consider' describes ordering within the results, not when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jobs_list, job_evaluate, or agent_run. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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