pix_list_queues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it guarantees this is the authoritative queue table rather than a guess, and it explains a common capture behavior (draws appearing in a named queue when the default queue looks empty).

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence is dense and adds operational value, though its grammar is slightly tangled ('Use the id or name... with pix_list_gpu_events or pix_get_pipeline_state') and could be clearer.

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 list operation with a read-only, idempotent annotation profile and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, the kind of data returned, and practical downstream usage. The main gap is parameter documentation, especially timeout_seconds, but the tool is otherwise sufficiently specified for an agent to invoke it correctly with capture_id.

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 input schema has zero description coverage and the tool description does not explain capture_id or timeout_seconds. The phrase 'in a capture' weakly implies capture_id, but the semantics of the optional timeout_seconds parameter and any constraints on capture_id are left entirely to the schema's minimal titles.

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 names a specific action ('List every command queue in a capture') and the exact returned fields ('name, type, and event count'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. 'This is the real queue table, not a guess' further distinguishes it from discovery-like or estimated queue tools.

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?

The description provides practical context: queue IDs/names from this tool should feed into pix_list_gpu_events or pix_get_pipeline_state, and it warns that the default queue may look empty while draws reside in a named queue. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like pix_discover_queues, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to choose it for authoritative queue enumeration.

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