ads_telegram_action_queue_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does useful work by explicitly declaring read-only and denying side effects ('does not send or mark anything read'), which is the key risk distinction against the mutating siblings. It says nothing about ordering, result limits, auth requirements, or whether the queue must be in a particular state, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the identifying scope front-loaded and the safety caveat immediately after. Nothing repeats the name or title.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description establishes what is returned (actions and statuses) and that no state change occurs. Only the status filter behavior and absence of pagination/ordering notes keep it from being fully complete.

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%, so the description must explain both parameters. 'One local Telegram action queue' hints that queue_id selects a single queue, but the status parameter is never addressed — 'statuses' reads as returned data, not a filter, so the enum values' filtering role is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (actions and statuses in one local Telegram action queue), scoped to a single queue. The read-only clause implicitly separates it from the sibling mutations ads_telegram_action_queue_process/cancel, though those siblings are never named.

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 read-only sentence hints this is the inspection tool used before processing or cancelling, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. An agent must infer that processing/cancelling belongs to the sibling tools from the negation alone.

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