queue_eta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the core behavioral trait: the estimation methodology (slicer 3MF estimate, then past runs of the same name, then a 60-minute fallback) and that running prints count with remaining time. It does not explicitly state that the tool is non-mutating or note any permission requirements, which is a minor gap.

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?

Two tight sentences, purpose front-loaded ahead of the fallback heuristic details. Every clause earns its place with 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return values, which it does clearly (printer assignment, start/end, overall completion). It omits any caveat about estimate reliability or determinism, but covers what an agent needs to interpret the output.

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 100%, so the two parameters (job_id, changeover_minutes) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Forecast the queue') and enumerates exactly what the forecast yields: printer assignment, start/end times, and completion time. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as queue_list (which lists) and queue_dispatch (which acts).

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 purpose implies when to use it (to get timing forecasts), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative relative to queue_list or queue_dispatch. Usage is left to inference from context.

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