flowpass_disagreement_queue

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context about what resolving a disagreement does, whether it is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur. It merely restates the operations.

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 with no wasted words. It is very concise, though the extreme brevity means it does not provide structural detail about the two modes.

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 100% schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it tells the agent the tool's domain and actions. However, it does not explain the resolve outcome or return behavior, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents action, run_id, reviewer_note, and disagreement_id. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what is already in the structured schema, making the baseline score 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?

States specific actions (list or resolve) and a specific resource (FlowPass Driver versus Verifier disagreements). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling FlowPass tools, though the dual action makes it slightly less precise than a single-purpose definition.

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 names two operations but does not explain when to choose list versus resolve, nor does it name any alternative or condition for using this tool over related FlowPass tools. Usage is only implied by the action enum in the schema.

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