rhino_render_queue_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'recent' and 'progress' as scope details, but does not clarify ordering, whether all jobs or only active jobs are returned, or what 'recent' means.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and the key output detail in eight words.

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 simple read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is ambiguity versus rhino_render_queue_status and the undefined meaning of 'recent.'

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 only parameter is a required 'args' wrapper containing an empty object, so there are effectively no user-selectable parameters. With 0 real parameters, the description has no meaningful parameter burden; baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names a clear resource ('recent render jobs') plus the data exposed ('their progress'). It clearly differentiates from submit/cancel operations, but it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling rhino_render_queue_status.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_render_queue_status or rhino_render_queue_submit. The description implies a read-only list operation but provides no context for selection or exclusions.

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