aiworkhub_launch_queue_evaluate_readonly

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: permitted is always False, the request stays blocked_launch_disabled regardless of environment gate state, no persistence is made, no process is launched, and neither queue nor audit state is mutated. This makes the tool's side-effect profile and fixed outcome very clear.

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 and organized into short paragraphs, with the read-only nature and disabled outcome stated immediately. It is somewhat repetitive about being read-only, writing nothing, and never mutating state, but the repetition reinforces important safety behavior rather than obscuring it.

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 description is complete on behavioral constraints and the fixed blocked outcome, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. But with six input parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the definition leaves a clear gap: an agent still lacks guidance on what the required inputs mean or how to supply them correctly.

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?

The input schema has six parameters and zero description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter's meaning, expected format, or role. Mentioning that it builds a pure LaunchRequest is not enough to compensate for the missing semantics of task_id, runner, topic, adapter_id, priority, and argv_template.

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: evaluate a launch request via the disabled B119 launch_queue_contract. It also clarifies that this is read-only and never launches, which helps separate it from actual launch tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling read-only launch queue tools such as aiworkhub_launch_queue_describe_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 provides context that this is a frozen read-only contract with no implemented launcher, implying diagnostic use. But it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions relative to the many sibling launch and queue tools.

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