Queue List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 'List all queues' implies a non-mutating read, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether the listing reflects active versus disabled queues. For a zero-parameter read tool the risk is low, so this is a modest rather than severe gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the parameter surface is empty. However, the description still omits whether results are paginated or filtered by queue status, which an agent would reasonably want to know before calling a 'list all' tool in a large site.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there are no argument semantics to document and nothing the description could add. Baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter schema applies.

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 (queues) with the scope 'all' made explicit. It is distinguishable from queue_run, queue_create, and queue_delete by verb alone, though it offers no wording that separates it from the more detail-oriented queue_info.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this should be paired with queue_info for per-queue details or is merely a discovery step before queue_run.

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