run_due_now

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool enqueues schedules and mentions the downstream pipeline via SafetyGuard and create_post, disclosing that it indirectly triggers post creation. This is informative though it could mention if it is destructive or requires no specific permissions.

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 only two sentences, with the first sentence stating the primary action and the second adding important context. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does and the downstream process. It could optionally mention that it is typically called periodically, but it is still sufficient for an agent to understand its effect.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description is clear that no input is 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?

The description clearly states the tool enqueues all currently-due schedules into the action queue, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_schedule or list_schedules. The verb 'Enqueue' and the resource 'schedules' are specific, and the reference to 'currently-due' clarifies the scope.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it is for processing due schedules, which is a specific context.

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