fleet_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose background execution, persistence while paused, state visibility (queued/running/finished), and the need for output_path for on-disk results. It also exposes destructive control actions like cancel and clear, though it does not spell out failure behavior or whether clear is irreversible.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence: purpose first, then a compact list of actions with their relevant parameters. There is no filler and every clause contributes to selection or invocation.

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 10-parameter, four-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate for the main flows but not fully complete. It does not describe list return format/results structure, leaves several parameters undefined, and the reference to 'same fields as fleet_delegate' is not self-contained.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It does add useful action-to-parameter mappings: cancel uses id, clear uses done/pending/all, add uses instruction and output_path, and it points to fleet_delegate for shared fields. However, it leaves context, category, files, and max_output_tokens unexplained, so the compensation is only partial.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Queue work the fleet finishes on its own') and enumerates the four actions ('add', 'list', 'cancel', 'clear'). It also differentiates from fleet_delegate by emphasizing that work runs in the background while the user is paused, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use context: when usage limit is reached or the session is closed, so the fleet keeps making progress. It does not explicitly say 'use fleet_delegate for immediate work' or list exclusions, but the pause/background framing strongly implies the alternative, so it stops just short of full explicit guidance.

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