queue_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. The term 'queue tree' implies a listing operation, but this is not confirmed, leaving the agent uncertain about side effects.

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, which is efficient but lacks detail. It front-loads the tool's identity but does not fully justify its existence—additional context about output or usage would improve it.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of information. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of queue trees? details?), how hierarchical bandwidth works, or how to interpret 'mark'. More completeness is needed for a standalone tool.

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 the schema already provides full coverage. Per guidelines, the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter semantics, but none are needed as there are no inputs.

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 as managing queue trees for hierarchical bandwidth throttling based on marks, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'simple_queues'. However, it lacks a verb (e.g., 'list' or 'show'), so the action is implied rather than explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only defines what a queue tree is, not the context or conditions for using it. Sibling tools like 'simple_queues' suggest a different use case, but no explicit comparison or recommendation is given.

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