list_annotation_queues

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

The description only states 'List annotation queues with pagination'. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, any rate limits, authentication needs, or ordering. With no annotations provided, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 very concise at one sentence. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words, though a bit more context could be added without harming conciseness.

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 low complexity, an output schema exists, and parameters are well-documented, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks any explanation of what annotation queues are or typical use cases, which could aid an AI agent.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for page and limit. The description's mention of 'pagination' is generic and does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 the action 'List annotation queues' and adds 'with pagination', which specifies the resource and a key feature. The name aligns well, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_annotation_queue or list_annotation_queue_items by focusing on queues themselves.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that this tool lists all queues while get_annotation_queue retrieves a single queue. The description lacks context about use cases or prerequisites.

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