Add task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Queue a bulk parsing task' implying non-blocking, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, error handling, or auth requirements. A queue tool should clarify whether duplicates are allowed and what happens on failure.

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 a single paragraph with the purpose and workflow in the first sentence, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value without fluff. However, it could benefit from structured formatting (e.g., bullet points for parameters) to improve readability for an agent scanning quickly.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and a complex workflow, the description is incomplete. It explains the basic lifecycle (queue, poll, fetch) but does not describe error conditions, the structure of task results, or how to interpret the returned taskUid. Missing context for optional parameters like 'query_format' or 'unique_queries'.

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 coverage is only 42% (5 of 12 parameters described). The description adds meaningful detail for parsers (stack format with examples), results_format (template syntax with $p1), and results_file_name (macro rules). However, 7 parameters like 'do_log', 'priority', 'config_preset' receive no additional explanation, leaving gaps.

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 'Queue a bulk parsing task' and that it returns a taskUid. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'one_request' which likely handles single requests, missing an opportunity to specify when bulk is appropriate.

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 post-usage workflow: poll with task_state/wait_task, then fetch results with task_results. However, it does not guide when to use this tool versus siblings like 'one_request', nor does it explain when to choose between 'queries' and 'queries_file' or priority settings.

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