Queue follow-up turn

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral constraints: the queueing nature, that it takes effect only after the current turn finishes, and that there is no way to interrupt a running turn. This goes beyond typical schema details and informs the agent about timing and irreversibility of interruption. It does not mention whether the action is reversible or if it has side effects on job state, but the disclosure is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 two sentences of clear, front-loaded prose. It states the core action first, then provides the key constraint without any fluff or redundant details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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 a tool with two optional parameters and one required parameter, the description covers the essential aspects: the action, the scope (session-mode job), and the timing/limitation. It does not explain the expected result or return value, but there is no output schema and the operation is simple enough that an agent can infer the outcome. The description is complete enough for correct invocation in most scenarios.

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 67% (two of three parameters explicitly described). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for `text` and `close`, and `job_id` remains undocumented. However, the description's mention of 'session-mode job' gives context that the job must be in session mode, which is useful. With moderate coverage, this is an adequate score.

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 specifies the action ('Queue a follow-up turn') and the resource ('a session-mode job'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like agy_cancel (which interrupts) and agy_start (which starts). The verb-noun combination is unambiguous and leaves no room for confusion with the other tools.

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 states that it applies to session-mode jobs and that it only takes effect after the in-flight turn finishes, which implies when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., if you need to cancel or interrupt a running turn). Given that siblings exist for cancellation and waiting, a clearer directive would elevate this to a 4.

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