get_sie_queue

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required scope ('sie:queue:read'), the governance policy ('Arbiter constitutional policy'), and the receipt guarantee ('sealed with a ProofLink cryptographic receipt'). The verb 'retrieve' strongly implies a read-only operation, and no side effects are mentioned, providing useful behavioral context beyond the name.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists return fields, the third gives usage context, and the second paragraph covers auth and receipt. No filler or redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides a good overall picture: what it returns, when to use it, and required permissions. It does not mention ordering or potential error conditions, but these are minor for a simple queue-reading tool. The description is complete enough given the context signals and schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The main description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it merely lists detector types and fix classes in the return fields, which redundantly echoes the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 purpose: 'Retrieve the current SIE security finding queue.' It specifies the resource (SIE queue), the action (retrieve), and the type of data (security findings). It also lists the return fields (severity, detector type, fix class, affected file paths, remediation action), making it distinct from sibling tools like 'get_learning_queue' and 'approve_sie_finding'.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use to inspect what security issues SIE has flagged for human approval.' This implies when to use the tool and distinguishes it from approval or scanning tools, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools as the calibration high example does.

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