list_queue_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List fields,' implying a read operation, but does not mention caching behavior (use_cache parameter), output format, side effects, or what 'local fields' means in practice. The phrase 'including local fields' adds a small amount of context but is insufficient.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words, directly stating the purpose. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Despite a clear one-liner and complete schema coverage, the description lacks context about how the 'fields' parameter interacts with the returned list and what 'local fields' entails. The tool has 4 parameters, and the description does not help the agent understand their combined behavior or typical use cases, making it incomplete for effective selection and invocation.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (queue_key, fields, use_cache, output_format), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 fields of a queue, specifically including local fields, which conveys a specific verb+resource+scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_queue or list_global_fields, but the resource and scope are clear enough to differentiate it.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_queue, list_global_fields, or list_field_categories. There is no mention of when to prefer this tool or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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