queue_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the asynchronous dispatch model, automatic free-printer selection, filament matching, and priority ordering — real behavioral value. But it omits what happens on submission (does it return a queue id?), the retry/give-up behavior implied by max_attempts, and any permission or file-state requirements, which are significant gaps for a queue mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence adds new information (what it does, how dispatch works, how priority orders runs). No filler.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the conceptual model but not the operational details: whether the file must already be uploaded, how printer_id pins versus the default scheduler behavior, what max_attempts means in practice, and what the caller receives back. Adequate but not complete.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'Higher priority runs first' gives meaning to the undocumented priority parameter, and the filament-matching sentence explains the filaments requirement. However, name, notes, plate, file_path, and the printer_id/max_attempts interaction with the scheduler remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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 specific verb and resource ('Add a sliced file to the print queue') and clarifies the deferred-dispatch model, which separates it in spirit from immediate actions like start_print. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling it is not (e.g. start_print, queue_dispatch, upload_file), so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

It supplies useful context about how the queue works ('the scheduler later picks a free printer that has the right filament loaded'), but never states when to use queue_add versus start_print, upload_file, or queue_dispatch, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable from the queue framing rather than spelled out.

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