list_queues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only operation via the verb 'list', but it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, nor does it mention any permissions, pagination, or real-time guarantees. It provides the basic function but lacks additional behavioral context beyond what the name itself implies.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema (as indicated in context signals), the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs to know. It accurately describes the scope ('named queues') and the specific data returned (queued/active counts), making it complete for a basic list operation.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed since no inputs exist.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List named queues and their current queued/active job counts.' This is a specific verb (list) + resource (named queues) + expected output (queued/active counts), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs or create_queue.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for viewing queue-level status, nor does it suggest using list_jobs or get_job_status for job-level details. The description provides no context to help the agent decide between this and sibling tools.

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