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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the tool is a read operation (list) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as sorting, pagination, or whether it returns only active or all evergreen items. It also doesn't mention if it requires authentication or what happens to cleared items.

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 concise, one sentence, and front-loads the main purpose. The quoted example usage is slightly redundant but harmless. It earns a 4 for its efficiency.

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 is a list operation with no output schema, the description should convey more about the returned data (e.g., fields like post ID, status, creation date) and any limitations (e.g., rate limits). It only tells the agent that it lists the queue, leaving the agent uncertain about the response format, which is a significant gap for a read tool.

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 input schema has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description appropriately explains the purpose but doesn't need to add parameter semantics because there are none. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is justified here.

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 it lists the user's evergreen queue, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling add_to_evergreen or other list tools, though the evergegreen queue is a distinct concept in this context.

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 primarily echoes the query phrase 'what's in my evergreen queue' but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like list_scheduled_posts, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for viewing the queue but lacks explicit alternatives.

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