spamtitan_get_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state what is returned (quarantined messages with sender, recipient, subject, and reason) and implies a non-mutating list operation, but it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or any side effects beyond listing.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the return-value summary is concise but informative. The description earns its place 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?

For a simple list tool with zero required parameters and fully documented schema, the description plus schema covers what the agent needs: return fields, optional filters, and pagination defaults. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit guidance about preferring sibling tools for message-level actions, keeping it just below top-tier.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented with their defaults, filters, and constraints. The description adds only marginal context about the output including 'reason for quarantine,' which maps to the reason filter, but it does not need to compensate for 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 opens with the action verb 'List' and a specific resource, 'the email quarantine queue,' then names the returned fields: sender, recipient, subject, and reason. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like spamtitan_get_message, spamtitan_release_message, and spamtitan_delete_message.

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 verb 'List' implies this is the browsing/listing tool, so the basic usage context is clear. However, the description does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to spamtitan_get_message for individual message details and release/delete for actions, so alternative routing is left to inference.

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