aiworkhub_launch_queue_describe_readonly

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description extensively discloses behavior: describe_intent is always invoked with audit=False, True raises LaunchDisabledError, launch_enabled() is hardcoded False, LAUNCH_IMPLEMENTED is False, and no launcher exists in the code path. It explicitly states the tool never mutates queue or audit state and never launches agents or processes, adding strong assurance beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY' and structured into paragraphs, but it contains some repetition: the opening 'READ-ONLY' and the closing 'FROZEN READ-ONLY CONTRACT... Never mutates... Never launches...' restate the same safety facts. The middle paragraph is dense with internal implementation details that could be tightened.

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?

With six parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameter meanings, but it does not address them at all. The output schema covers return values and annotations cover read-only behavior, but the missing parameter guidance makes the definition incomplete for correctly invoking the tool.

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% for six parameters (task_id, runner, topic, adapter_id, priority, argv_template), and the description provides no parameter-level meaning or usage guidance. It mentions LaunchRequest and enqueue_intent in passing but never explains what any of the six parameters represent or how they should be supplied.

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: 'describe a launch INTENT via the disabled B119 launch_queue_contract' and explains it returns 'dry-run intent + gate evaluation as data.' However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from close siblings like aiworkhub_launch_queue_evaluate_readonly or aiworkhub_launch_queue_audit_summary_readonly.

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 says it is read-only and describes an intent, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It never names the similar evaluate_readonly or audit_summary_readonly siblings or states selection conditions. The implied use case is a read-only intent description, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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