postifys_cq_list_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context: this is the native (non-n8n) queue and requires a feature flag plus entitlement. However, it does not disclose error behavior when the feature is disabled, pagination or limit handling, or any response characteristics; read-only nature is only implied by 'List'.

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?

Three short sentences with no wasted words, each earning its place. However, the core purpose is placed last, after context and prerequisites, so the description is not front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

The definition falls short for a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It covers prerequisites and the basic action, but leaves two of three parameters semantically opaque and does not distinguish the tool from the cluster of CQ listing and job tools, so an agent would struggle to invoke it correctly with confidence.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it barely does. 'Data table' loosely hints at tableId, while limit and status are left entirely unexplained — no valid values, no filtering semantics, no guidance on defaults or relationships.

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 provides a clear verb and resource, 'List rows in a data table', and anchors it in the Content Queue context. It is not a tautology and the name maps well to the action. However, the purpose is somewhat diluted by the opening context phrase, and it does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like postifys_cq_list_tables or postifys_cq_list_jobs.

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 explicitly states prerequisites, 'Requires CONTENT_QUEUE_ENABLED on the server and publish entitlement', which implies when the tool is callable. But it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many CQ siblings, nor any exclusions or alternative routing.

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