list_approval_queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key safety trait ('Read-only'), which is valuable, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, what happens with the default status filter, or the shape of the returned items.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the read-only note. Nothing redundant.

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?

For a simple two-parameter, non-destructive list tool this is minimally adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description leaves return format, ordering, and status-filter semantics unstated. It is enough to call correctly but not fully informative.

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% and the description mentions neither 'limit' nor 'status'. The enum values and defaults exist in the schema, but the description does not explain the semantics of filtering by status (e.g., whether 'all' returns everything) nor any limit behavior, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (List) and resource (proposed emails in the local approval inbox), which is distinct from list_messages/list_mailboxes. It does not, however, explicitly tie itself to the sibling tools queue_email_for_approval, approve_queued_email, or discard_queued_email that operate on the same queue.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as list_messages or search_messages, nor any mention that approve_queued_email/discard_queued_email are the follow-up actions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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