runrunit_suggest_devs_with_free_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the core logic (based on tasks in the Task column, estimates, and optional filters), but it doesn't mention whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any edge-case behavior. Still, 'sugere' implies a non-mutating suggestion operation, adding some transparency beyond the tool name.

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 Portuguese sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose and includes the key qualifiers (Task column, estimates, filters). It could be slightly better structured, but it earns its place and remains highly readable.

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 the tool has 13 optional parameters and no output schema, the one-sentence description plus the rich parameter schema is mostly adequate for a simple call. However, it doesn't describe the return value (e.g., a list of developer IDs with queue scores), nor does it summarize which parameters are typically needed together for useful results. The schema covers individual parameter dependencies, so this is a partial gap rather than a critical one.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 13 parameters are already documented with meanings, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning optional filters (time, projeto, tags), which are already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'sugere desenvolvedores com fila mais livre' based on tasks in the Task column with estimates and optional filters. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks or get_task, which focus on listing or retrieving tasks rather than suggesting developers by queue load.

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 implies the use case — finding developers with the freest workload — but does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. It doesn't name any sibling tools or provide exclusions, so the agent must infer the context from the description alone.

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