turingmind_get_decision_queue

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

With no annotations, the description adequately covers behavior: it returns a list of high-priority gaps sorted by blast radius severity, with examples. It could further detail the sorting mechanism, but it's sufficient.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value: defines output, usage, and specifics of output. No unnecessary content.

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 simple read tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what is returned and when to use it, though it could mention pagination or limit behavior explicitly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides (repo and limit).

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 clearly states the tool provides a prioritized Action Item queue, specifies its purpose (deciding next work), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on gaps sorted by blast radius severity.

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 explicitly says to call this tool to figure out next work, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like get_ready_nodes, so it's not a full 5.

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