action_queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the ordering logic (overdue first, then upcoming by deadline) and that clashing intentions are flagged, which adds useful context. However, it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what 'flagged' means in the output, or any side effects, so transparency is moderate.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. The parenthetical reference to 'goal-directed priority, ACT-R; Anderson 1983' adds theoretical context but could be seen as extra; however, it does not undermine conciseness. Overall, minimal waste.

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 the tool has one undetermined parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, the meaning of 'flagged', how 'limit' affects the queue, or how this tool relates to the many sibling planning and intent tools. A more comprehensive description is needed for effective use.

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 a single 'limit' parameter with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention 'limit' at all, leaving its meaning completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema information.

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 identifies the tool's function: it orders active intentions into an action queue with a specific priority scheme (overdue first, then upcoming by deadline) and flags clashing intentions. This is a specific verb ('order') + resource ('active intentions') + scoping (queue ordering) that distinguishes it from other intent-related tools like intent_due or intent_report.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: whenever you need an ordered action queue from active intentions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a 5 but is more than just implied usage.

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