queue_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at the returned content (status counts plus task details) but omits pagination, ordering, result limits, and any explicit confirmation that this is a side-effect-free read.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and returned payload front-loaded; nothing is redundant. It is terse rather than padded, though it borders on under-specification.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves essential calling details (status semantics, result shape beyond a summary, ordering) unaddressed despite the large sibling set it must compete against.

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 0%, so the single 'status' parameter is undocumented. The phrase '按状态统计' hints that status relates to grouping/filtering, but valid values, whether it filters or aggregates, and its default are all unstated.

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?

States a specific verb (查看/view) and resource (队列/queue) plus the content returned: status statistics and task details. This clearly separates it from write-oriented siblings like queue_add or queue_run, though it never names an alternative to disambiguate explicitly.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus the other queue tools; the read-only intent is only implied by the verb '查看'. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no stated alternative.

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