List Queues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which sufficiently indicate behavioral traits. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., error handling, rate limits, or result ordering). With annotations present, the description does not contradict them and is adequate but minimal.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 description is complete for a straightforward list operation but lacks details about the output format. Since there is no output schema, the description should hint at the structure or fields of returned queues. It omits information about potential pagination or defaults, leaving the agent to infer from the 'list' verb and sibling tool patterns.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (routerId, target, limit), so the schema already documents their meaning. The tool description adds no additional detail beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation of a 3.

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 the action ('List') and the resource ('simple queues') with context ('on a MikroTik router'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools that operate on different resources (e.g., list_dhcp_leases, list_routes) and from the write counterpart manage_queue.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites, context for filtering, or relationship to the manage_queue sibling. The annotations imply safe read-only usage, but the description itself lacks usage direction.

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