dsh_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: durable request deduplication and no automatic retry for unknown delivery. It stops short of stating side effects, success/failure return behavior, or duplicate handling details, but the disclosed features go beyond a generic 'queue' statement.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the action and scope, then add two essential behavioral qualifiers. No filler words; every phrase contributes, including 'EXISTING' and 'durable'.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what happens after queueing, such as return value, async status, or delivery semantics, but it only says unknown delivery is never retried. It provides enough to attempt a call with the required schema fields, but not enough to fully predict the result or next steps.

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 0%, so the description must supply parameter meaning. 'EXISTING session' hints at sessionId, 'request deduplication' ties to requestId, and 'task' loosely maps to text, but the description never names or explicitly documents each parameter's exact role.

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 ('Queue') and resource ('an explicitly authorized task in an EXISTING session'), making the tool's core action unmistakable. It also distinguishes dsh_prompt from sibling status/management tools like dsh_status, dsh_sessions, and dsh_wait by focusing on enqueueing into a session rather than inspecting or waiting on it.

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?

It implies when to use the tool: when there is an existing session and an explicitly authorized task to queue. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use it, leaving routing decisions to inference.

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