list_annotation_queues

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states a generic action and offers no details about pagination, default sorting, the effect of the 'project' parameter, or response structure. No behavioral information is provided.

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 sentence with no fluff, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, making it too brief to be appropriately informative. It is concise but lacking necessary structure.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It only covers the basic list operation, omitting any explanation of parameter semantics, pagination behavior, or filtering options. The description is inadequate for guiding correct usage.

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 schema has 3 parameters with 0% coverage (no descriptions), and the description does not explain any of them. The phrase 'in the project' vaguely hints at the project parameter but does not clarify its default or format. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema parameter documentation.

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 function: 'List all annotation queues in the project.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('annotation queues'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_annotation_queue (single queue) and list_annotation_queue_items (items within a 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. It does not mention the pagination parameters or the project filter, nor does it direct users to other tools for specific scenarios. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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