list_content_queue

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 does disclose that the operation is free and 'reads stored data,' implying non-mutating behavior. It also states 'Requires a signed-in account,' which is a real authentication requirement. However, it doesn't describe return format, ordering, pagination, or what happens with an empty queue. Decent but not rich.

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 and front-loads the core purpose (what the pipeline shows) before giving usage guidance. No wasted words. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because it interleaves multiple concerns (what it lists, when to use, auth) into a somewhat dense first sentence rather than cleanly separating them, though nothing is redundant.

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?

This is a single-parameter read tool with a complete schema and no output schema, so the bar is moderate. The description covers purpose, scope, usage context, and auth. Missing: what return values look like (since there's no output schema, the description could reasonably mention the shape of returned data) and behavior with an empty pipeline. Adequate but could be more complete.

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 100% with a single domain parameter already described as 'Bare domain, e.g. acme.com.' The description reinforces it's domain-scoped ('for a domain') but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema's example.

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 what the tool does: lists the AutoSEO content pipeline for a domain, showing topics waiting to be written and articles already generated/published with their source keyword/prompt. This is a specific verb (list) + resource (content queue/pipeline) + scope (per domain). It distinguishes from siblings like list_gaps and list_keywords by describing the pipeline state rather than gaps or keywords.

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 explicitly says 'Use it to see what is in flight before queueing more,' which provides clear when-to-use guidance. It also gives an implicit when-not-to-use by contrasting with queueing actions (queue_article sibling). The phrase 'before queueing more' sets up a clear workflow sequence that an agent can follow.

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