FleetQ

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

Annotations are empty {}, so description carries full burden. Lists actions but reveals no behavioral traits: whether execute is async/blocking, what execution_status returns, mutation side effects, or persistence guarantees. 'Execute' implication is vague.

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?

Compact single-sentence style with parenthetical parameter hints, which keeps it brief but creates dense, hard-to-scan structure. The parenthetical param lists are somewhat helpful for quick reference but contribute to the 'agents' inaccuracy.

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?

Incomplete for a 12-parameter multi-action tool with no output schema. Missing: explanation of the crew execution lifecycle, return value descriptions, error conditions, and clarification on the over-constrained required parameter list (e.g., why execution_id is required for the list action).

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), the description inaccurately references non-existent 'agents' parameter for create action (actual params are coordinator_agent_id and qa_agent_id). Also fails to clarify which of the 7 'required' schema params apply to which actions, a critical omission given the schema incorrectly marks all fields as universally required.

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?

States 'Manage multi-agent crews' with specific actions listed, but fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'agent_manage', 'team_manage', or 'workflow_manage'. The term 'crews' is not contextualized within the ecosystem of 30+ management tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus agent_manage or team_manage. No workflow guidance (e.g., create → execute → execution_status). No mention of prerequisites or permissions needed for execution.

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