mkt_run_queue

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the safety burden and does so well: it discloses the dry-run default, that go=true causes real side effects, and that a gated approval/policy path is required before anything is sent. It stops short of describing what a real run does per channel, how partial failures are handled, or whether runs are idempotent or rate-limited.

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 purpose is front-loaded and no clause is filler — every segment carries gating or permission information. However, it is delivered as a single dense chain of semicolon-separated clauses with nested parentheses, which makes it harder to scan than a short list of conditions would be.

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?

For a mutating execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical ground: default mode, the live-run switch, approval/policy preconditions, and what MCP is not allowed to do. Only return-value expectations and per-channel execution semantics are unaddressed, which is a modest 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 coverage is already 75%, and the description still adds real meaning: go is framed as dry-run vs. live execution, routine is framed as 'use an existing policy only — MCP cannot create or revoke authorization'. queue_path and account are left to their schema descriptions, which is acceptable given their coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource — '执行一个队列' — and enumerates the channels it covers (email/hn/github/reddit/linkedin/x-reply), so the agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. It does not name any sibling tool to distinguish itself from near-neighbors like mkt_action or mkt_orchestrate, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly states the default mode (dry-run), the switch for real execution (go=true), and the precise preconditions for real execution: a human-reviewed plan, or explicit routine=true with a matching policy. It also gives hard exclusions — UNVERIFIED-channel calibration and plan-less adhoc runs are manual-CLI-only, and authorization management is not exposed to MCP. This is a full when/when-not specification.

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