workspace_plan_external_imports_for_queue

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Plan' is ambiguous: it could mean return a computed plan, persist something, or fetch external metadata. The description does not mention side effects, return values, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, though it is so brief that it misses important behavioral context.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It does not explain what a 'plan' consists of, whether imports are modified, or what the agent should expect in response.

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 schema has one parameter, queue_id, with 0% description coverage. The description adds only that the tool concerns 'one reading queue,' which mostly restates the parameter name. It does not explain queue_id format, where to find it, or any constraints.

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 has a specific verb ('Plan') and resource ('external arXiv imports referenced by one reading queue'), so an agent can tell this is about planning imports for a queue rather than executing them. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools for_result and for_paper, but the queue scope is clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as workspace_plan_external_imports_for_result or workspace_plan_external_imports_for_paper. It also does not state prerequisites like whether the reading queue must already exist.

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