List queued messages

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuine behavioral value: queued messages are drained automatically at the end of the current turn and are returned in send order. It does not describe message contents or pagination, but the added lifecycle context is meaningful.

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 efficient sentences front-load the core action and the queue-drain behavior adds real value. The trailing sentence 'Read operation.' is redundant with readOnlyHint=true and could be dropped.

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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and understand the queue lifecycle. A brief note on what a queued message looks like would close the remaining gap left by the absent output schema.

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 100%, so session_id and account are already fully documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ('List the messages waiting in a session's queue') and adds ordering ('in the order they will be sent'), which clearly identifies it as the read-side counterpart to the queue message tools. It does not explicitly name siblings like update_queued_message or delete_queued_message, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 explains queue mechanics ('drained automatically when the agent finishes its current turn') but never says when an agent should call this versus alternatives such as list_sessions, update_queued_message, or send_queued_message. No conditions or exclusions are offered, leaving usage to inference.

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