inject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a mutation ('inject') but fails to mention side effects, required permissions, failure modes, or what happens after injection. This lack of detail fails to inform the agent of potential risks or constraints.

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 unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core purpose, though given the tool's complexity (4 parameters), it might benefit from a bit more detail. Still, it is appropriately concise for stating the primary function.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, including an assertions array), lack of annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, verification steps, or how this tool integrates with siblings like assert or handle_stuck, leaving the agent with insufficient information for correct invocation.

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 50% (name and command have descriptions, but priority and assertions do not). The description adds no parameter information, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema. It does not compensate for the missing descriptions of priority and assertions, nor does it clarify the role of the required parameters in the injection process.

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 action ('inject') and the target ('pending queue'), making it distinct from sibling tools like metrics, status, and logs, which are read-only. The verb+resource structure is specific and unambiguous.

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 vs alternatives such as orchestrate or assert. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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