postfix_queue_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying data source (postqueue -j) and notes delays are 'grouped and classified with hints', but says nothing about required permissions, cost on large queues, or sampling behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the output detail packed into a comma-separated list. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, yet the description still usefully previews what the aggregates are. For a low-complexity read-only tool with full schema coverage, the only minor gap is any note on access requirements for reading the queue.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (top, queue) are fully documented in the schema, including defaults and the queue enum values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Summarise the Postfix queue') followed by a precise enumeration of outputs: per-queue counts, top recipient/sender domains, grouped delay reasons with hints, and oldest message. That enumeration makes it clearly distinct from siblings like postfix_queue_list and postfix_queue_shape without needing to name them.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as postfix_queue_list or postfix_queue_shape, and no mention that it works as a first-pass overview. Usage is only loosely inferable from the word 'Summarise', which is thin guidance given ten queue-related siblings.

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