queue_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It notes the default filter (queued and printing) but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, permissions, or what the response contains. Too thin for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentence with the scoping detail front-loaded inside the parenthetical. No waste. It is appropriately sized, though brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% param coverage, the description is the only source of behavioral detail and it omits pagination, ordering, result shape, and the meaning of 'limit'. More is needed for an agent to call it confidently in a queue workflow.

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 0%, so the description must document both parameters. It partially compensates for 'status' by revealing the default (queued and printing), which the schema does not state, but 'limit' is left entirely unexplained (units, max, effect on results). Half the parameters remain 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List queue jobs') so an agent knows it reads the print queue. The parenthetical narrows the default scope usefully. It doesn't distinguish itself from sibling get_history (which likely covers past/done jobs) or spool_list, leaving some ambiguity.

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 indication of when to use this versus get_history, queue_eta, or the other queue_* tools. The only contextual hint is the default status filter, which is behavioral rather than a usage rule. An agent gets no guidance on when this is the right call.

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