webmaster_list_recrawl_queue

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior by indicating it is a read operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or any other behavioral aspects beyond the basic read.

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 exceptionally concise and to the point, with no unnecessary words. It immediately states the action and resource, making it easy to grasp.

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 simplicity of the operation, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does. It does not need to elaborate on return format or filtering since these are implied by the parameter names and the nature of the task.

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 description only implicitly hints at pagination via 'one page' but does not explain the meaning of limit, offset, or host_id. The parameter names are somewhat intuitive, but the description does not add explicit semantic detail.

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 action ('Read') and the resource ('asynchronous recrawl requests'), and specifies that it is for one page. This effectively distinguishes it from related operations like creating or applying recrawl requests.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus other recrawl-related tools (e.g., webmaster_get_recrawl_task). It does not mention alternatives or specific use cases.

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