nifi_queue_listing

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it discloses the backend is a POST endpoint that is 'polled to completion,' signaling async latency. The 'reads state only' clause largely restates the annotations, but the polling detail earns credit beyond them.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no wasted words. The implementation note and read-only clause are useful though slightly redundant against the annotations.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the 2-parameter schema has zero description coverage and the description compensates only for connection_id, leaving the limit parameter undocumented.

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 description must carry parameter meaning, but it only implicitly implies connection_id via 'on a connection.' The limit parameter (default 25) is never explained, and neither parameter's format or effect is clarified.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the flowfiles currently queued on a connection'), making the operation easy to identify. It is clear on its own but does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like nifi_get_flowfile.

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?

Usage is only implied via 'currently queued on a connection'; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as nifi_get_flowfile, and no stated prerequisites. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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