list_school_queues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions inclusion of thumbnail URLs and default pending status, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the response structure looks like. The lack of output schema and annotation burden makes this description insufficient.

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, front-loading the main purpose. It is concise with no filler. Could potentially add one more sentence about usage without becoming verbose, so 4 rather than 5.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about return structure and behavior. It does not explain the default pagination (if any), how thumbnail URLs are formatted, or how to interpret the different queue_statuses beyond what's in the schema. The tool is relatively simple but still lacks completeness for an agent to use effectively without additional information.

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 50%: 'group_id' and 'queue_status' have descriptions in the schema, while 'skip' and 'limit' do not. The description adds context that 'group_id' comes from available_queues and explains 'queue_status' values, but does not address pagination parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since it partially compensates for the schema gaps.

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 lists student print requests for schools/classrooms managed by the teacher/admin, and mentions thumbnail URLs and default status. While it distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_school_printers' which lists printers, it could be more explicit about the differentiation, hence 4 rather than 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'approve_and_queue' or 'reject_queue_item'. The description implies it's for viewing pending requests but does not clarify when to use filtering via 'queue_status' or suggest using 'get_job' for individual job details.

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