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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the owner-only restriction and the glob pattern behavior, including the segment matching rule and empty pattern case. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state side effects or return format, which is a minor gap.

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 with the core purpose and key behavior front-loaded. It is concise and free of redundancy, efficiently conveying the glob semantics and access restriction without extraneous detail.

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 listing tool with no output schema, it does not describe the return format, pagination, or ordering. However, it provides enough context about the pattern and access to make the tool callable. The missing details are minor for a simple list operation.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the pattern parameter with concrete examples, but it does not explain the required slug parameter, leaving its meaning ambiguous. Owner_key is covered by the schema, so the description adds value mainly for pattern.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List queue names under a namespace matching a glob pattern.' It distinguishes from sibling queue tools (e.g., queue_list_items) by focusing on queue names rather than contents, and the glob semantics further clarify its scope.

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 provides explicit context on access restrictions (owner-only) and the glob matching behavior, which informs when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the unique purpose is implied by the name and description.

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