mq_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add an agent' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't disclose what permissions are needed, whether this is idempotent, what happens if the agent already exists, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary information. This is an example of appropriate brevity, though the trade-off is lack of detail.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters (one required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'agent' is in this context, what the parameters mean, what happens when the tool executes, or what to expect as a result. The minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 3 parameters (name, desc, tool) are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about what these parameters mean or how they should be used. 'Add an agent' gives no insight into what 'name', 'desc', or 'tool' parameters represent in this 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 action ('Add') and the target resource ('an agent to the message queue'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mq_send' or 'mq_recv' which might also involve message queue operations, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

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 alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools (mq_send, mq_recv, mq_history) that likely interact with the message queue in different ways, but no context is given about when this specific 'add agent' operation is appropriate versus other queue operations.

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