list_queues

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds nothing further – no pagination behavior, no note on how 'available' is determined, no volume or rate context. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this one-liner contributes essentially no extra behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity is under-specification rather than discipline – there is simply nothing else provided.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a paginated list tool the description omits pagination semantics and any usage context. What remains is too thin for an agent to call it confidently with correct paging.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden for explaining page and per_page. It mentions neither pagination nor any default, leaving both parameters semantically undocumented.

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 a clear verb and resource ('Получить доступные очереди' – get available queues), so an agent knows it lists queues. It does not distinguish itself from any sibling or clarify what 'доступные' (available) means in scope terms, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_queue_fields, which also concerns queues), nor any prerequisite or scope guidance. The agent must infer usage 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.