get_queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it provides substantive details: incomplete evidence is routed to needs_evidence_completion, and measurement confirmation requires an independent agent with different metric inputs. It does not explicitly state read-only safety or output format, but the 'feed' framing and these non-obvious rules go well beyond a bare description.

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 three short sentences, each adding distinct information: feed scope, routing behavior, and measurement confirmation policy. The identifying phrase is front-loaded, and there is no filler, repetition, or redundant restatement of schema/annotation data.

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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context about what the queue contains and how edge cases are handled. It does not spell out the exact action representation or ordering/pagination, but those are secondary concerns for invoking this tool successfully.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing meaningful for the description to add about parameter semantics, and adding more would be unnecessary noise.

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 opens with 'canonical open-work feed' and immediately enumerates the exact work categories it surfaces (second, evidence, deterministic-gate repair, ratification ballot, re-certification). This makes the tool's resource and scope unmistakable. The word 'canonical' also distinguishes it from the many sibling get_* tools even without naming one.

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?

Calling this the 'canonical open-work feed' gives an agent clear context that this is the primary tool for open work, and the category list implies when it should be used. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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