create_queue_tree

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

Annotations provide only openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious creation action. It does not disclose side effects, failure modes, permissions, or prerequisites. The parameter format notes are semantic rather than behavioral, leaving the agent uninformed about operational impacts.

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 highly concise: one clear purpose sentence followed by a compact bullet list of parameter notes. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition or filler.

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?

Despite having an output schema, this is a 14-parameter creation tool with minimal annotations. The description omits guidance on half the parameters, gives no usage alternatives, and does not mention prerequisites or potential issues. It covers only core bandwidth/duration semantics, leaving substantial gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description's notes add significant meaning for several parameters: bandwidth formats for max_limit/limit_at/burst_limit/burst_threshold, duration for burst_time, interface/queue examples for parent, and a 1-8 range for priority. However, roughly half the parameters (e.g., name, queue, device, comment, disabled, bucket_size, packet_mark) remain unexplained, so it does not fully compensate.

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 states a clear, specific action: 'Creates a hierarchical queue tree entry attached to a parent interface or queue.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_simple_queue and the other queue tree management operations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives no direction on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_simple_queue) and does not mention prerequisites like parent existence or exclusions. The only implicit hint is the phrase 'attached to a parent interface or queue,' but there is no explicit usage guidance.

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