create_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose critical behavioral traits such as immutability (queue cannot be modified after creation), FIFO ordering, and fixed concurrency limit. These are important lifecycle details. However, it omits error handling such as behavior on duplicate names or permission requirements, so not a perfect score.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no wasted or redundant elements.

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 creation tool with an output schema and two parameters, the description covers the main purpose but leaves gaps. It does not mention potential failure scenarios (e.g., duplicate name handling) or usage context relative to sibling tools. The lack of annotations increases the need for these details, making it minimally viable but incomplete.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by mapping 'named' to the name parameter and 'fixed concurrency limit' to the concurrency parameter, giving meaning to the integer. It doesn't provide constraints like positive integer, but it clarifies the role of each 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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('queue'), and clearly distinguishes it from sibling job tools by highlighting key properties: immutable, named, FIFO, and fixed concurrency limit. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and context, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that a queue must be created before submitting jobs, nor does it explain when not to use it.

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