build_author_review_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the queue is 'read-only', implying no side effects. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like required permissions, data sources, or what happens to the queue after building.

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 concise with a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It is reasonably efficient, though the sentence is somewhat long and could be broken into shorter statements for clarity.

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 complexity (14 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It provides high-level purpose but lacks details on return values, parameter usage, and behavior, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 0%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the 14 parameters. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema's structure, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use parameters like mode, limit, format, etc.

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 tool's purpose: building a read-only queue of various items (proposals, conflicts, etc.) needed for author review before state changes. It uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('read-only queue'), and the mention of different item types distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'build_proposal_review' or 'build_chapter_acceptance_plan'.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. While it implies the queue is for author review before state changes, it does not compare with siblings or specify prerequisites or when not to use it.

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