List Tracker queues

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: auto-pagination over page/perPage, and the cap on item count unless limit is supplied. It stops short of describing return shape or ordering, but for a read-only list this is solid.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope, then pagination/cap behavior, then the routing hint and key semantics. Every sentence carries information; it is slightly verbose but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the item shape (each item's key, e.g. TEST, usable as an issue prefix). Combined with full parameter coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only ordering/sorting detail is absent.

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 is 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline of 3 applies. The description's note that results are capped unless limit is given largely restates the schema's own description of limit, and expand is not addressed at all.

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 (list) and resource (queues) with explicit scope — 'every queue the caller can see' — and distinguishes itself from tracker_queues_get by noting the latter returns a single queue's full configuration. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative sibling explicitly ('Use queues_get for a single queue's full configuration') and gives the selecting condition (single vs all queues). It also tells the agent that the returned key is the value to pass to queues_get and to use as an issue prefix.

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