dequeue

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the order of event draining, all possible return shapes (updates, pending, timed_out, error), default wait behavior, hard cap, force override, and duplicate-session detection. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and return types, followed by detailed but necessary behavioral notes. It is dense with information yet remains clear. Minor redundancy (e.g., mentioning 'call again' multiple times) could be trimmed, but overall it is well-structured and efficient.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all aspects: return types, error handling, default values, alternative actions, and optional features. It is comprehensive enough for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly without needing external references.

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?

Although the schema already has 100% coverage, the description adds significant context beyond the schema: the meaning of max_wait omission (session default), the fallback value, the force parameter's relationship to the default, the purpose of connection_token for duplicate detection, and the effect of response_format. This extra value justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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's action ('Consume queued updates') and the resource ('queued updates'), with specific detail on event processing order (non-content events first, then up to one content event). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like action, help, and send.

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 explicit guidance on when to call again (pending > 0), when to stop (session_closed error), and how to raise the default wait via action(type: 'profile/dequeue-default'). It also directs users to call help(topic: 'dequeue') for more details, covering both usage and alternatives.

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