list_queues

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful scope detail ('discovered' queues) and explicitly enumerates the return fields, which informs the agent about what to expect beyond the bare annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core action and scope, the second details the return payload. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers scope and return contents sufficiently. There are no missing prerequisites, error modes, or side-effect disclosures that the agent would need here.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description correctly adds no parameter information, which is appropriate and earns the established baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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+resource pair ('List all discovered RQ queues') and clearly states what is returned (job counts by status, worker count). The scope 'all discovered' distinguishes it from per-queue tools like get_queue and jobs-focused tools like list_jobs.

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 implies when to use the tool (to get an overview of all queues and their workload) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for when not to use it. No direct comparison with siblings like get_queue or list_workers is provided.

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