list_queues

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the return value format ('QueueName: <name>, QueueURL: <url>') and the conditional listing behavior. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state side-effect-free or error behavior.

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 compact and well-structured with summary, Args, and Returns sections. Each sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter interface and no output schema, the description adequately explains the parameter and the exact string format of returned list items. However, it omits potential pagination, ordering, or error conditions, which could be relevant for a production tool.

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 input schema provides only a default value with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by fully explaining the prefix parameter's meaning ('队列名称的前缀') and its default behavior, which is critical for correct usage.

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 explicitly states it retrieves all queues matching a prefix, or all queues if no prefix is given. This uses a specific verb ('获取'/'list') and resource ('queues'), and clearly distinguishes itself from the mutating sibling tools (create/delete/send/receive).

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?

It provides clear context that the tool lists queues with an optional prefix filter, and explains the default behavior (no prefix = all queues). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or refer to alternative sibling tools.

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