getQueries

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List' is consistent with a read-only operation, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of pagination limits, response format, or side effects. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description contributes nothing extra, warranting a 2.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks structure and front-loads no useful information. Every word is wasted; there is no effort to organize content. The minimum viable length for a tool with multiple parameters would be several sentences, so this is inadequate.

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 no output schema, no explanation of parameters, and no mention of response format or pagination, the description is severely incomplete. An agent has no idea what the tool returns or how to construct a valid request. Given the tool's moderate complexity (nested objects, required params), this is completely insufficient.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the parameters. The schema exposes pathParams.format (json/xml) and queryParams (limit, nometa, offset), but the description gives no hint about their meaning, usage, or constraints. Since schema coverage is zero, the description must compensate but fails entirely, scoring 1.

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 'List queries' is a verb+resource phrase but lacks specificity. It doesn't clarify what kind of queries (e.g., saved queries, search queries, or system queries) are being listed, nor does it distinguish itself from sibling list tools like getIssues or getProjects. It essentially restates the tool name in a minimal way, bordering on tautology.

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 alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, scope, or scenarios where getQueries is appropriate with respect to the many sibling tools. This is a complete absence of usage direction, scoring a 2 per the 'no guidance' criterion.

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