List Nano Banana Queue

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the tool scans for markdown files, validates them, checks for output file conflicts, and provides previews. However, it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by bullet points detailing outputs, and ends with usage guidance and an example. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It lacks an output schema, but the description outlines what the tool provides (validation status, conflict detection, preview). A minor gap is no explicit mention of error handling or output format details.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (queue_dir, validate, check_conflicts). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying parameter usage through the example. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('list and validate prompt files') and resources ('queue directory'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'nanobanana_generate_image' (which creates images) and 'nanobanana_process_queue' (which processes the queue). It explicitly mentions scanning markdown prompt files, validation, conflict detection, and content preview.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this to review what will be generated before running process_queue.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'nanobanana_process_queue' and indicates it's for pre-processing inspection rather than execution.

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