distill_queue

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

Since no annotations are present, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does: it states this is only the queue view and that the actual distillation is 'YOUR job, not the server's', implying the call is read-only and no items are consumed. It does not explicitly mention 'does not modify state' or return format, but the workflow statement is sufficient to avoid misusing the tool as a distiller itself.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into instructions. Each sentence adds value; the only potential redundancy is the slightly long procedural second paragraph, but it is instructional and not filler. It balances brevity with the needed workflow.

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?

The tool is a simple queue listing with two parameters and no output schema, so the description is mostly sufficient for a correct call. However, it does not describe the shape of each raw capture item (e.g., ID, body, metadata) or what `include_body=false` affects, which an agent might need to know when calling `mark_distilled` on the correct source.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it does not. There is no mention of `limit` or `include_body` by name; the only hint is 'with their content,' which loosely maps to `include_body` default (true). An agent has no explicit guidance on how to control batch size or whether setting `include_body=false` changes the returned object shape, which is a meaningful gap.

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 opening line, 'Raw captures not yet distilled, oldest first, with their content,' precisely states the resource, the ordering, and the payload. It clearly distinguishes distill_queue from list_notes and others in the sibling set by scoping it to undistilled raw captures and tying it to the distillation workflow.

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 goes beyond when to use it by providing an explicit end-to-end invocation guide: read each item, distill into `create_concept_note` with [[Title]] links, then `mark_distilled` with the produced list. It also covers the edge case of ephemeral items (mark with empty list), leaving no ambiguity about how to handle the response.

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