list_queues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output includes current queue depth, but otherwise discloses no additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or error behavior.

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 purpose is stated in a single front-loaded sentence, followed immediately by concise parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place without redundant or vague filler.

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?

With a rich output schema, clear annotations, and complete parameter explanations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over get_queue.

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 carries the full burden for parameter meaning, and it succeeds. It explains qmgr with an example, name with wildcard patterns, and queue_type with each enum value's meaning and the default, adding substantial value beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific verb, '列出' (list), and a specific resource, '队列' (queues), while adding the distinct detail that current depth is included. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_queue_managers and get_queue.

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 gives filtering guidance through parameters like wildcard support and queue_type, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_queue. Usage context is implied by the word 'list' rather than explicitly stated.

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