resume-queue

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint: false), and the description implies a state change, but no details are given about side effects, required permissions, or what happens if the queue is not paused. The lack of disclosure beyond the bare action is a gap.

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 extremely concise (4 words), which is efficient but sacrifices necessary information. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place due to lack of substance.

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 mutation tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to convey what resuming entails, success/failure behavior, or how it differs from other queue operations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain the parameters 'vhost' and 'name'. Although their names are common, the agent receives no clarification on format, scope, or validation.

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 'Resume a queue' clearly indicates the action (resume) and the resource (queue). It is succinct and likely contrasts with the sibling tool 'pause-queue', though it does not explicitly state that relationship.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pause-queue' or 'purge-queue'. The description lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., queue must be paused) or typical scenarios.

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