list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'PM visibility' which hints at access control, but doesn't explain what that means, whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or what happens to messages after listing. For a queue tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two parts: a clear purpose statement followed by a usage example. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. However, the usage example could be more integrated with the purpose statement rather than appended as a separate fragment.

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?

For a queue listing tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'pending messages' means operationally, what format the output takes, whether results are paginated beyond the limit parameter, or how 'PM visibility' affects results. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description only mentions the 'namespace' parameter in the usage example, adding minimal value beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 all pending messages') and resource ('in the queue'), specifying scope with '(PM visibility)'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'send' or 'reply' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation or response. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'check' or 'chk' which might also involve queue inspection.

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 a usage example ('list(namespace='myproject')') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check' or 'chk'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or comparative context with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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