Run Sonnet-as-Judge

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a write operation consuming LLM budget, asynchronous (scores land in `judge_results`), and idempotent within a short window. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences front-load the action and return type, with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers core purpose, return type, async nature, idempotency, budget consumption, and sibling reference. Could mention error conditions or more detail on the dispatched count, but sufficient given the output schema is available.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (`limit` and `projectId`). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'one judge-batch job per project' but that is implicit from `projectId`. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Queue' and the resource 'Sonnet-as-Judge to grade recent fix quality across accessible projects', and distinguishes from sibling `get_fix_timeline` by specifying it is for vetting fix quality before shipping.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use before shipping to vet fix quality') and when not to (use `get_fix_timeline` instead for a single attempt), and notes idempotency within a short window.

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