Yarn Scheduler Queues

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so reasonably: it discloses the external dependency and authorization prerequisite (ResourceManager access via YARN_RM_* env vars) and explains that the metric semantics change with the scheduler type (capacity vs fair share). It does not cover failure modes, latency, or what happens when the RM is unreachable, but the output schema covers the response shape.

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 front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the access prerequisite, then the single parameter explanation. It is dense but every sentence carries information. The first sentence is long and stacks several concepts, which slightly hurts scannability but not correctness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still summarizes them well. However, for a tool requiring a cluster identifier and an optional service, the description gives no guidance on valid cluster/service values or how to discover them, which is the main remaining gap.

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%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It only defines one: only_leaf is described as showing just leaf queues where jobs actually run, which is genuinely useful. The cluster (required) and service parameters are left completely unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving an agent to guess whether service refers to a YARN service name or something else.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: it returns the queue tree read directly from the ResourceManager, including configured vs used capacity (Capacity Scheduler) or fair share vs usage (Fair Scheduler), active/pending apps, and per-user consumption per queue. That is specific enough to distinguish it from generic siblings such as yarn_application_attributes or yarn_cluster_metrics. It stops short of naming the closest siblings (yarn_queue_usage, yarn_top_consumers) so an agent cannot fully tell them apart from the text alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the data it exposes (queue hierarchy and per-queue consumption), and it states a prerequisite: RM access via YARN_RM_* configuration documented in the README. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no routing to yarn_queue_usage or yarn_top_consumers, which overlap substantially with this tool's output.

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