autopilot_queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a key safety disclosure. It also explains the 'Empty when' condition, giving insight into runtime behavior. This is sufficient for a simple read-only queue.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the key phrase 'L2 work queue,' with no filler. Every clause adds meaning: criteria, empty condition, and read-only behavior.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers what the queue contains, when it's empty, and safety status, without needing to explain return values.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, but the description fully explains what the tool returns and the meaning of the queue contents. This adds value beyond the empty schema, meeting the baseline 4 and exceeding it with rich semantic context.

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 states the tool returns the L2 work queue, defined by specific criteria (approved matches on auto_apply_safe boards, scoring at/above policy min, not dedup-blocked, no open application). This specific verb and resource scope distinguishes it from siblings like list_matches and get_autopilot_policy.

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 gives clear context on when the queue is empty (autopilot off or no safe board), implying the tool is for checking the autopilot queue. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous.

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