list_queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond listing parameter names; it does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, or any side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short and to the point, but it is not well-structured for usability. The parameter list is redundant with the schema and adds no value; the endpoint is given but is not needed. It is concise but not effective at conveying key information.

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?

Given 12 parameters with no descriptions, no enums, and an output schema that is not explained in the description, this is highly incomplete. An agent cannot correctly construct a query without knowing valid values for status, quality, languages, and other filters.

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 description lists all 12 parameters by name but provides no explanation of their meaning, allowed values, or format. Schema coverage is 0%, so neither the description nor the schema offers semantic guidance. For example, 'protocol' and 'sort_direction' are objects with no defined structure, leaving the agent to guess.

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 states 'Read Queue' which is clear enough as a read operation on the queue resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_queue_details or list_queue_status, so an agent cannot tell which specific queue view this returns.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_queue_details or list_queue_status. It only states the endpoint and lists parameters, offering no context on typical use cases or exclusions.

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