list_annotation_queue_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that status can be PENDING or COMPLETED, but does not clarify that status is optional, nor does it mention pagination behavior or the project filter. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not explicitly stated.

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 front-loads the primary action and includes one additional relevant detail. There is no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary 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 tool has moderate complexity with 5 parameters, but the description is minimal. It fails to mention pagination defaults, optional status behavior, and project filtering. While an output schema exists, the description still lacks important context that would help an agent use the tool correctly, such as what happens when status is not provided.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only elaborates on the status parameter, providing its allowed values. It does not explain the required queue_id, nor does it provide meaning for page, limit, or project beyond what their names imply. This is insufficient compensation for the complete lack of parameter descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'List items in an annotation queue.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('annotation queue items'), and even provides the status filter values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_annotation_queues, which list queues rather than items.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use must be inferred from the tool's name and general context. There is no mention of alternatives or specific use cases.

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