add_retrial_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Add retrial_queue pattern' without explaining side effects, prerequisites, or the nature of the operation (e.g., creates an element in a network). This is insufficient.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks structure and essential details, making it insufficient for an agent.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and many sibling queue types, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the retrial queue behavior, network context, or return values (output schema exists but is not elaborated).

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%, yet the description does not mention any parameters (e.g., name, service_time, retrial_delay) or their meanings. It fails to add semantic value beyond the bare schema, leaving the agent with no understanding of parameter roles.

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 'Add retrial_queue pattern' specifies a verb and resource, but 'pattern' is vague and does not clarify what a retrial queue is or how it differs from siblings like add_balking_queue or add_reneging_queue. It is minimally clear but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling add_ tools for different queue types, the absence of usage context makes selection difficult for an agent.

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