list_queues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses automatic pagination, the CTM per_page cap, max_items truncation behavior, and the default status filter, going well beyond a typical 'list' tool description.

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 yet information-dense, with a clear front-loaded purpose and follow-up paragraphs that each add operational value. There is no wasted text or repetition of schema information.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers pagination, defaults, and truncation. However, account_ids is left unexplained, which is a small but notable gap for a tool with four parameters and no schema descriptions.

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 description explains status values and defaults, max_items semantics, and per_page cap indirectly. However, the account_ids parameter is not described, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema metadata.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clearly identified resource ('call queues' with synonyms 'ring groups, agent pools'), scoped to 'across sub-accounts'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_queue (singular resource) and list_sub_accounts (different resource).

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 gives clear context: it lists queues across sub-accounts, defaults to active sub-accounts only, and tells the user how to include other statuses. It does not explicitly contrast with get_queue or other alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough.

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