Request List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses ordering semantics (most votes first, then first asked), that positions are returned, and critically that a bare call defaults to status=waiting rather than showing everything. It omits any note about scope (whose requests) or whether it is safe/paginated, but the read-only nature is implicit in a list operation.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then the filter values in a single compact clause. The colon-separated value list is slightly telegraphic and the line break splits the sentence oddly, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described; the one parameter's valid values are fully covered and ordering is explained. Only missing piece is scope — whether the queue is global or per-user — which affects how an agent interprets the result.

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 coverage is 0% and the status field has no enum constraint, so the description must supply the value set — and it does, enumerating waiting (default), playing, done, skipped, and all, plus what 'all' means (every request, newest last). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific resource (the request queue) and what the response contains: what plays now, then waiting requests with their positions and ordering rules. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like request_next or request_where, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied — 'the request queue' suggests you call it to inspect queue state. There is no explicit 'use this when X, use request_next when Y' guidance and no stated prerequisites, even though request_next, request_where and request_mark are close alternatives.

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