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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation via "List" and mentions provenance, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, side effects, or whether actions are persisted or consumed. Minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded with the "[Local ops]" context, and has no filler. Every word adds value, achieving excellent conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It states what it does and its relation to queue_action, yet leaves out potential behavioral details like action lifecycle or return format, which would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'limit' and 'status' having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no further parameter details, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, warranting the baseline score.

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 a specific verb and resource: "List actions previously appended by queue_action." This distinguishes it from the sibling queue_action tool and other list/status tools by explicitly linking it to the queueing mechanism.

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 provides clear context, indicating it lists queued actions, so an agent knows when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or cite alternative tools, though none are obvious siblings for this exact operation.

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