list_queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it will never start a browser, and it returns the exact payloads that would fire rather than just summaries. It does not discuss ordering or freshness of the queue data.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return shape and paging constraints. No sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting is covered, and the description still communicates what the results contain (payloads + per-status counts). The only material gap is the undocumented status/account filter semantics for a 4-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it partially does: it documents limit (1-100) and offset (paging through local history). The 'status' and 'account' filters are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List queued actions') and adds distinguishing scope: full payloads of what will fire, plus per-status counts. An agent can distinguish this from process_queue or cancel_queued_action without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context ('Read-only, never starts a browser', limit/offset semantics for paging history), which tells the agent when this inspection tool is appropriate. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling (e.g. process_queue) or stating an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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