list_queues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers the listing behavior, queue types, and pagination semantics. It does not mention rate limits, permissions, or ordering, but for a simple read-only list tool, the disclosure is adequate and adds useful context beyond the bare 'list' action.

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 exceptionally concise and well-organized. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a useful note about usage in list_activities, then a compact list of queue types and an Args section. Every element adds value without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the existence of an output schema (which handles return structures), and the thorough coverage of purpose, parameters, and cross-tool relationships, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. No critical information is missing.

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 only defines skip and take with default values, with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explicitly explaining each parameter: 'skip: Pagination offset' and 'take: Number of records to return', along with defaults. This gives the agent all necessary meaning for correct invocation.

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 'List all queues' with a specific verb and resource, and goes further to distinguish this tool by listing queue types (in, out, email, chat, etc.). This effectively separates it from sibling list_* tools like list_tickets or list_calls.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use this tool: the 'name' field of each queue is used as the 'queue' filter in list_activities, giving a concrete cross-tool workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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