Get Queue Fields

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

The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by disclosing that include_local_fields triggers parallel requests, and that schema.required indicates mandatory fields. It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral context beyond the read-only hint.

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 four sentences, each contributing useful information. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids fluff, though it could be slightly tightened without losing 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?

For a simple read-only tool with high schema coverage, an output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description is complete. It explains the return types, optional behavior, and a concrete use case, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by explaining the optional local fields and tying the tool to the issue_create workflow, but it does not significantly go beyond the schema.

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 states the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'fields for a specific Yandex Tracker queue', and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning global and optional local fields. It also references the schema.required property, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this to find available and required fields before creating an issue with issue_create tool.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to make an informed choice.

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