List the review queue

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new context: the underlying endpoint (GET /api/review-queue), required scopes (review_queue:read, luca:read), and data sensitivity full_content. Minor tension: 'Does not require idempotency' sits alongside idempotentHint=true, though they describe different things (no idempotency key required vs. naturally idempotent).

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?

Short, line-oriented, and front-loaded with the core action before the auth/endpoint metadata. A couple of lines ('Luca operation: GET /api/review-queue', 'Does not require idempotency') are marginal but cheap.

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 read-only list with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description is nearly sufficient — auth requirements, workspace override behavior, and sensitivity are all disclosed. The remaining hole is that the query filters and ordering semantics are unexplained anywhere, which matters for a queue whose purpose is triage ordering.

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 75%, and the uncovered part is the entire nested 'query' object — limit, order (priority/fifo), cursor, status, category have types and enums but no descriptions anywhere. The description adds nothing about these filters, and its workspaceId/workspaceSlug sentence merely restates what the schema already documents.

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 review-queue items'. It is clearly a read/list operation, distinguishable from the sibling mutations (approve, reject, restore, media_retry) and from the explain/sla variants. However, it never names a sibling or explains how it differs (e.g. from luca_review_queue_sla or luca_triage_inbox).

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 opening clause 'when the API key has review queue access' is a prerequisite, not a when-to-use rule. It gives workspace-override guidance ('Use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override the default workspace') but never says when to choose this list over alternatives like luca_review_queue_sla or luca_triage_inbox, leaving selection to inference.

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