nest_intake_queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so by indicating this is a listing operation (read-only), describing the source and state of the items (staged by nest_intake_scan, awaiting a decision), and noting the output includes the predicted track. It lacks details like pagination or ordering, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 that efficiently states the action, the resource, the source of the items, and a key output detail. Every phrase adds value and there is no wasted wording.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers the main purpose and one output field. However, it omits any explanation of app_id, and without an output schema it does not describe the full return shape or potential edge cases like an empty queue. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 should compensate for the sole required parameter, app_id. It does not mention app_id at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning and purpose from the parameter name alone. This is a notable gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('pending review queue'), and further distinguishes itself by noting the queue is populated by nest_intake_scan and contains the classifier's predicted track. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like nest_intake_flags or nest_intake_skip.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to see files staged by nest_intake_scan that are awaiting a confirm/override/skip decision. It provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 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.