get_project_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 beyond that: no pagination behavior, no indication of what a returned queue contains, no note on whether the listing is filtered by issue membership vs. project association. With annotations covering safety, the bar is lower, but this adds essentially no 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 zero filler; nothing is buried or redundant. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the transparency gaps noted elsewhere.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. It leaves open return shape, pagination, and the semantics of the undocumented projectId, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 coverage is 50%: expand is fully documented in the schema, while projectId has no schema description. The description implies projectId identifies the project whose queues are listed, which adds some meaning, but it says nothing about expand's effect or the accepted projectId formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (queues) plus a scoping qualifier: queues whose issues belong to a project. That implicitly separates it from the unscoped sibling get_queues, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'project' – an agent can infer you call this when you have a project and want its queues, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to get_queues/get_project as alternatives.

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