enqueue_task

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

Description states caller_agent_id is required, but schema marks it as optional with default null, creating a contradiction. No annotations provided. Discloses admin restriction and return format, but the contradiction undermines reliability.

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?

Description is concise with a purpose sentence, admin note, and structured Args/Returns section. No extraneous text, but the contradiction about required parameter reduces clarity.

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 moderate complexity and no output schema structure, description covers most aspects but misses sibling differentiation and lacks detail on queue behavior. The contradiction further detracts from completeness.

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 has 0% coverage, so description bears full burden. It explains each parameter's meaning and provides example values for priority. However, it does not clarify allowed values for dependencies or that priority defaults to medium in schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('追加する' = add) and resource ('スケジューラーキュー' = scheduler queue). Among siblings like create_task and remove_task, it differentiates by focusing on queue addition. However, explicit distinction from create_task is not provided.

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?

Only mentions admin-only usage. No guidance on when to use enqueue_task vs alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use. Lacks context for decision-making.

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