Get Edited Queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return structure ('items' with 'kind' and 'meta' with pagination fields), which is helpful. However, it does not mention permissions (likely moderator-only), error conditions, or any side effects, leaving 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by return format. Every word is useful, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and return format, but lacks critical context about moderator authorization and the fact that this is a moderation queue. With no output schema or annotations, this omission could mislead an agent into assuming it works like a public listing tool. The pagination fields are mentioned but not fully explained.

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% with descriptions for all four parameters, including enum constraints and pagination semantics. The description's mention of 'meta (limit, has_more, next_cursor)' reinforces the role of 'limit' and 'after' but adds no new information beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'posts and comments in a subreddit that were edited by their author after posting.' This distinguishes it from siblings like reddit_get_modqueue or reddit_get_spam, which target different moderation queues.

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 implies usage for retrieving edited posts/comments but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites like moderator access. The context is clear from the purpose, but no direct exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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