nest_intake_queue

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, and the description's verb 'List' reinforces that it is a read-only operation. The description adds transparency by detailing what the queue contains (files, predicted track) without implying any side effects. It does not mention potential costs or limitations, but the read-only nature is well-covered.

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 a single, concise sentence that communicates the key aspects: the action (list), the subject (pending review queue), the source (files staged by nest_intake_scan), the state (awaiting decision), and an extra detail (predicted track). There is no redundant information or filler.

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 provides a good overview of what the tool does but leaves out important context. It does not describe the output format, pagination, ordering, or how to interpret the 'track' field. The unexplained 'app_id' parameter further reduces completeness. However, the core purpose is covered, so it is above a minimal score.

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 schema defines a required 'app_id' parameter, but the description gives no explanation of its purpose or expected format. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not even mention the parameter. An agent would be left guessing what app_id refers to, which is critical for a required parameter.

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 that the tool lists the pending review queue, and it specifies the content: files staged by nest_intake_scan awaiting a confirm/override/skip decision. It also mentions the predicted track, which adds specificity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nest_intake_scan or nest_intake_file, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but its purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer it is for retrieving the queue. There is no mention of conditions or contexts where it should be preferred, such as 'use this when you need to see pending items'. This leaves some ambiguity in usage guidance.

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