list_queue_definitions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns metadata rather than items, which is a useful scoping constraint. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, mention permissions, or note any side effects. Since 'list' implies a read operation, the absence of explicit safety language prevents a higher score.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists return details, alternatives, and finally documents the argument. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse the essential 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema provided), the description covers the essential context: what it lists, what it returns, what it doesn't, and alternatives. It omits potential error conditions or prerequisite checks, but these are less critical for a straightforward listing operation. The presence of an output schema also reduces the need to describe return values in text.

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 coverage for the sole parameter is 0%, but the description adds meaningful semantics: 'folder_name: The display name of the folder.' This clarifies that the parameter expects a human-readable folder name rather than an ID, which directly compensates for the schema's lack of detail. More elaboration on how to obtain the display name would have been ideal, but this is adequate for a single parameter.

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 'List all queue definitions (metadata) in a folder' and specifies exactly what is returned: names, IDs, and configuration, while explicitly noting what is not returned (items). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_queue_items and count_queue_items, making the purpose and scope unmistakable.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'To retrieve actual work items, use get_queue_items. To count items matching a filter before fetching, use count_queue_items.' This directly addresses tool selection and is more detailed than typical alternatives guidance.

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