List all queues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that (no auth requirements, no note on whether queues include counts/status), so it neither helps nor harms.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the first two lines are redundant restatements of the same idea ('List all queues' / 'Retrieves a list of queues'), and the third line is pure endpoint metadata. It earns its place by being brief, but wastes a sentence.

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 parameterless read-only list operation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. It omits any hint of what a queue record contains, but that is a minor gap for a tool this simple.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline of 4 applies since the empty schema is self-explanatory.

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 verb and resource ('List all queues'), which is clear on its own. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as immich_get_queue (singular), immich_get_queue_jobs, and immich_get_queues_legacy, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling queue tools (get_queue, get_queue_jobs, get_queues_legacy) or when-not to use it. The agent is left to infer selection entirely from the name.

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