list_job_queues

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

The description provides limited behavioral information: it maps to GET /queue.json (idempotent read) and includes a tier hint '[tier: readonly-owner]'. No side effects, rate limits, or additional traits are disclosed. Without annotations, the burden is on the description, which is minimal.

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 concise: one sentence plus tags. It front-loads the action and resource. No unnecessary words, though additional structure could improve readability.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values or pagination behavior (cursor is in schema but not mentioned in description). The description is incomplete for understanding the full context of the tool's capabilities.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds only 'optionally filtered', which adds minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the purpose: list dispatch queues for assignment records. It clearly indicates the resource (queues) and action (list), but the phrasing is slightly awkward. It differentiates from siblings like list_jobs by focusing on queues.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide context for selecting this tool over siblings like list_jobs or search tools.

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