approval_queue_list

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

No behavioral traits are disclosed. The description does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden but provides nothing.

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?

The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified. Conciseness is positive, but the lack of substance makes it insufficient.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide any behavioral or usage context. The agent is left with no understanding of what the tool returns or how to use it effectively.

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%, and the description adds no information about the parameters limit or project_id. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions.

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?

The description states it's a compatibility alias for agent_queue_list, which implies its purpose is the same as that tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., list approval queue items), leaving the agent to infer from the sibling name.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent_queue_list or approval_queue_approve. The alias relationship is noted but not clarified for decision-making.

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