cleanuparr_list_queue_rules

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, establishing the tool as a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the scope of queue rules (stall or slow) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering, or relationship to ARR instances. It does not contradict the annotations and provides some added value, but not rich detail.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. No wasted words or redundant 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?

Despite being a simple list tool with an output schema, the description is incomplete because it fails to explain the required 'kind' parameter. This is a clear gap that hinders correct invocation. The description does not provide enough context for an agent to know what values to pass for 'kind'.

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 has a required 'kind' parameter with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description must compensate but does not explain what 'kind' means or how it relates to 'stall or slow queue rules'. The parameter semantics are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on valid values.

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 'List stall or slow queue rules.' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (stall or slow queue rules), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_seeding_rules and create/update/delete queue rule tools. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to view existing stall or slow queue rules. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusion that would earn a 5. The context is clear enough for a simple read-only list operation.

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