thth_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states '読むだけ' (read-only), which is a key behavioral trait and helps agents know it's non-destructive. However, it doesn't disclose anything else like authentication, error handling, or return format, leaving some ambiguity.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the main output (list and next items) and flags it as read-only. It is efficient with no redundant words, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 has no output schema, so the description must explain the return value. It says a list is returned along with next scheduled items and timing, but it doesn't specify the structure or format of this data. Key terms like '型外' are undefined, and there's no mention of pagination or how the account parameter affects results, leaving gaps for an agent attempting to use it correctly.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'account' with a clear description ('省略時は全アカウント'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but doesn't exceed it.

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 action (returns) and resource (queue list with statuses and next scheduled items). It names distinct statuses (draft/approved/posted/型外) and includes timing info, making the purpose fairly clear. However, '型外' is ambiguous and the exact meaning of 'next' is vague, so it's not fully specific enough for a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings like thth_preview, after_you_posted, or where_to_appear. It doesn't state exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the queue-related terminology.

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