peaka_list_queries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the return shape and the dependency behavior on peaka_list_projects. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first front-loads the action and return values; the second delivers high-value workflow guidance about projectId resolution. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.

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 no output schema, the description properly compensates by stating what the tool returns (query names, SQL content, plain/materialized status). Combined with read-only annotations and the projectId workflow, nothing an agent needs to call this simple one-parameter tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single projectId parameter, setting a baseline of 3. The description elevates it by explaining how to obtain projectId (call peaka_list_projects, ask the user) and that it should be reused across subsequent calls — meaning beyond the schema's simple 'project ID to run against' definition.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List all saved queries in the Peaka project') and states the return contents (query names, SQL content, plain/materialized flag). The 'all' scope distinguishes it clearly from the singular peaka_get_query sibling and the CRUD/execution siblings, so an agent can select it correctly without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit usage context and a concrete prerequisite workflow: if projectId is unknown, call peaka_list_projects first, ask the user which project to use, and remember it. This is clear, actionable guidance, though it stops short of naming alternatives/exclusions for when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for a single query's details).

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