workspace_list_reading_queues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates that queues are persistent and scoped to the active workspace, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. It does not disclose filtering behavior, ordering, pagination, or side effects, though for a simple listing tool the lack of explicit side-effect disclosure is less critical.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, resource, and scope; no filler. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it omits some useful supporting detail.

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 two-parameter list tool with no annotations, the description is underspecified: it ignores status and paper_id and gives no hint about how to filter or whether results are mutable. The output schema supplies return shape, which helps, but does not compensate for the missing parameter and behavioral context. Overall it is a viable one-line definition for the simplest 'list everything' call, but not complete for the full parameter set.

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 schema has two optional parameters, status and paper_id, with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention either. The agent has no guidance on what values are valid or how filtering works. Thus the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 names a specific operation ('List'), a specific resource ('persistent reading queues'), and a scope ('active workspace'). It clearly reads as a list action and, by naming 'persistent', hints at the distinction from reading sessions. It does not explicitly contrast with workspace_create_reading_queue or workspace_get_reading_queue, so it stops short of fully differentiating among siblings.

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 phrase 'in the active workspace' gives useful context for when the tool applies, and the verb 'List' implies it is the collection-view counterpart to workspace_get_reading_queue. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the name and the sentence.

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