getQueries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List queries', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose output format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or any other behavioral trait. The implicit read-only nature is not sufficient for safe and effective use.

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 extremely short, 'List queries', which is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, the brevity borders on under-specification; it is two words that convey only the most basic intent but omit essential details, making it an example of minimalism rather than effective 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 nested schema, two required parameters, and absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot determine required path/query parameters, expected response structure, or usage constraints. This description offers virtually no guidance beyond the tool's name, making it inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 defines two nested objects (pathParams with format enum, and queryParams with limit, nometa, offset), but the description does not reference or explain any of these parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description completely fails to compensate, offering no semantic context for what format, limit, offset, or nometa mean or how they affect the listing.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'queries', making the basic action and object clear. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of queries are listed, what scope or filtering applies, and it does not differentiate itself from any potential alternate tool because no other query tool is present. It is barely more informative than the tool name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of excluded scenarios. The description is limited to 'List queries' with no contextual advice, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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