list-queries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions pagination but does not disclose behavior such as what happens with empty results, auth requirements, rate limits, or the structure of returned data. This is insufficient for a list operation with 6 parameters.

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 with no wasted words. It is efficient but borders on under-specification. Adding structured details (e.g., pagination mechanism) could improve without harming conciseness.

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 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain pagination mechanics (cursor-based vs. offset), response format, or the meaning of 'saved queries'. Sibling tools are many, increasing the need for clearer context.

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?

The schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the tool's purpose. No parameter details are enhanced.

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 'List saved queries with pagination', clearly indicating the verb (list) and resource (saved queries) with a key feature (pagination). However, it does not differentiate from many sibling list tools (e.g., list-charts, list-tables) beyond the resource name, lacking specific scope. With a null title, the purpose is clear but not distinguished.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-query (single query) or search-metadata. The description omits context for filtering or pagination use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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