list_queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method/path but no behavioral context such as pagination defaults, queue item scope, or relationship to list_queue_details/list_queue_status.

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 opening two lines are useful, but the body repeats 'Query parameter' eleven times, which is pure redundancy. The list could be removed or condensed into a sentence about filter options.

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 tool with 11 optional parameters and no schema descriptions, this definition leaves the agent without enough information to construct meaningful filters or know how it relates to queue variants. The output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the lack of parameter semantics and usage context still makes this incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the 11 parameters, but it only repeats their names followed by 'Query parameter.' This adds no meaning beyond the schema's property names and types, and it does not clarify formats for ambiguous params like protocol, sort_direction, or status.

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 begins with 'Read Queue' and provides the concrete endpoint GET /api/v3/queue, so an agent can tell this is a read-only list operation on the queue. However, it does not differentiate this from siblings such as list_queue_details or list_queue_status; the phrase is close to a restatement of the tool name.

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 about when to call list_queue instead of related queue/list tools; there is no mention of alternatives or conditions. The only usage signal is the generic 'Read Queue' phrase, which is implied by the tool name and adds no decision support.

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