mylar_issues_queue

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, but it only discloses potentially significant behavior for two operations ('may snatch/download' for force_search and queue_issue). Other mutating operations, like mylar_force_process and mylar_unqueue_issue, do not mention permissions, reversibility, external effects, or other behavioral consequences.

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 longer than average but necessarily so given the seven distinct operations. The per-operation bullet list with signatures and short comments is well-organized and scannable, with no significant filler.

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 high complexity (seven operations), minimal input schema, and no annotations, the description does a solid job of covering the purpose and key parameters of each operation. An output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable, but a few operation side effects remain under-specified.

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 input schema is generic (operation plus a free-form arguments object), so the description's detailed function signatures add substantial meaning. It lists parameter names and provides allowed values for several (e.g., comicid: single, list, 'all', 'missing', or 'refresh-missing'), although some optional parameters like ddl and oneoff remain unexplained.

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 this as the Mylar3 issues-queue tool and enumerates seven specific operations (e.g., mylar_force_process, mylar_queue_issue) with concise explanations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mylar_comics and mylar_providers.

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?

Each operation is accompanied by a brief usage context, such as 'Used by SABnzbd/NZBGet-style callbacks' and 'Trigger a wanted-issue search across the library.' It does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the per-operation guidance gives clear situational context.

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