list_queues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is a read operation that presumably lists queue names, but it does not disclose what data each returned queue entry contains, whether listing requires active/connected state, or whether there could be errors (e.g., invalid connectionId). Coverage of behavioral traits is minimal.

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 a single, focused sentence with no waste. Every word earns its place, and it front-loads the core action. This is appropriately concise for a simple single-parameter list tool.

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 1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the tool is simple. The description is arguably sufficient for a minimal list operation given the schema covers the only parameter. However, absence of any note about return shape or error/connection requirements leaves slight room for improvement, so a 3 is fitting.

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%, meaning the schema already documents connectionId thoroughly. The description adds the conceptual framing that it lists queues 'for' the connection, which aligns with the parameter. Since the rule states high schema coverage (>80%) gives a baseline of 3 and the description modestly reinforces the param's role, a 4 is justifiable.

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 clear verb+resource ('List all queues') but only scopes it to 'a connection' without specifying which connection type or adding context that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_topics or queue_info. It is adequate but does not differentiate the tool's specific role among the many peer tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_connections, queue_info, list_topics, or other sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., connection must be active), no alternates named, and no exclusions. The usage context is entirely implied by the name.

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