queue_get_names

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It hints at return content ('purpose and usage rules') suggesting this returns metadata beyond just names, but lacks disclosure on side effects, auth requirements, or return format structure.

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?

Single efficient sentence, front-loaded with action verb. No redundant words or tautology.

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 exists, the description should elaborate more on return structure. While it mentions 'purpose and usage rules', it doesn't clarify if this returns an array, object format, or pagination behavior. Adequate but incomplete for a data-returning 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?

Input schema has 0 parameters, which warrants baseline score of 4. Description correctly implies no filtering is needed by stating 'List all'.

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?

Clear verb 'List' and resource 'Bull queues in LaunchFrame' with scope 'all available'. Mentions enriched content (purpose/usage rules). Distinguishes implicitly from sibling 'queue_scaffold_*' tools by being a read operation, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., 'use this for discovery before calling queue_scaffold_*'). The phrase 'usage rules' refers to returned data, not tool invocation guidelines.

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