add_simple_queue

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It indicates a write operation and a requirement flag, but does not disclose return values, error handling, idempotency, or side effects such as whether existing queues can be overwritten.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, one line for requirement, and a structured parameter list with examples. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 add tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, requirement, and parameter formats. However, it does not describe the return value, postconditions (e.g., the queue will appear in simple_queues), or potential errors, which would improve completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides concrete examples for all three parameters (e.g., name: 'limit-tamu', target: '192.168.88.50/32', max_limit: '5M/10M'), adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 states the verb 'Tambah' (add) and resource 'simple queue' with purpose 'membatasi bandwidth target' (limit bandwidth target). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'simple_queues' (list) and 'queue_tree' by specifying 'simple queue', but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives.

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 description includes the prerequisite MIKROCLAW_ALLOW_WRITE=true and provides example parameter formats. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like queue_tree, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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