queue_detail

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

The [READ] prefix indicates a read-only operation, which is the key behavioral trait given no annotations are present. However, the description does not disclose potential errors, permission needs, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, focused line followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the core purpose is front-loaded with the [READ] prefix and the resource scope.

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?

Despite having no annotations or output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a simple read tool: it names the parameters, their meanings, and summarizes the return content (counts, rates, consumers, memory, arguments). It does not describe the exact return structure, but that is acceptable for this scope.

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 enriches all three parameters: vhost's default is '/', name is sourced from list_queues, and target is a config-based optional value with an explicit instruction to omit for the default. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 verb 'READ' and the resource 'one queue's full detail', enumerating specific content (counts, rates, consumers, memory, arguments). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like queue_overview and list_queues, which serve different scopes.

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 implies usage context by noting the name comes from list_queues, suggesting a prerequisite workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like queue_overview, nor does it provide exclusions or comparative guidance.

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