Get Unmoderated Queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with items and meta), the possible item types (post|comment), and pagination semantics (next_cursor). It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only queue listing, the provided behavioral details are substantial and useful.

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 primary action and directly followed by the output structure. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool is simple, and the description covers the functional purpose, the nature of items returned, and the pagination mechanism. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately fills in return-value expectations. It is complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results without needing additional context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'after' relates to meta.next_cursor for pagination and that 'limit' has a default/max, reinforcing the schema. It also clarifies that the response meta includes 'limit', 'has_more', and 'next_cursor', linking parameters to returned data. This exceeds the baseline.

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 tool lists posts/comments not yet approved or removed, which distinguishes it from sibling moderation tools like get_modqueue, get_spam, and get_edited. It uses a specific verb (list) and names the resource (unmoderated queue in a subreddit), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: when needing unmoderated content (not yet approved/removed). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the distinction from sibling tools is implicit. This provides clear context without going so far as to name other queue tools.

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