queue_overview

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

The readOnlyHint annotation confirms non-destructive behavior, and the description goes beyond it by spelling out that output is dispatched by platform type, listing the specific metrics each branch reports. That is genuinely additive context beyond the annotation, though it says nothing about cost, timeouts, or failure behavior when a target is unreachable.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the platform-dispatched return shape, then the argument. Three compact blocks with no filler sentences; every clause adds selection or invocation value.

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 usefully sketches the return surface per broker, and the read-only annotation covers the safety profile. A small gap remains around error/unavailable-target behavior, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: 'target: Broker target name from config; omit for the default' explains both origin and defaulting behavior. It stops short of naming valid targets or stating what happens for an unknown target.

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+resource ('one-shot summary') and enumerates exactly what is aggregated: platform, version, backlog/memory/client health, with per-broker breakdowns. It is distinguishable from detail-oriented siblings like queue_detail and list_queues, though it never names or contrasts with rabbitmq_overview, which overlaps heavily for the rabbitmq branch.

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 only routing guidance is 'omit for the default,' which explains the parameter default rather than when to choose this tool over alternatives. Usage as the top-level summary entry point is implied by 'one-shot summary' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement versus node_health, rabbitmq_overview, or the RCA tools.

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