Llamadas en espera en colas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and dynamic nature. The description adds real-time context and scoping behavior, but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or pagination. With annotations present, the description adds moderate value.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word earns its place; no wasted text.

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?

Given the simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, good annotations), the description covers the essential behavior and scoping. However, it does not mention output format, limits, or error conditions. Still, it is largely complete for this tool.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining the effect of the optional queueId parameter: without it, returns all queues; with it, only that specific queue. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema type.

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 tool returns people waiting in queue(s) right now. It distinguishes from siblings like pbx_queue_state and pbx_queue_waittime by focusing on callers, not queue state or wait times. The scoping behavior (with/without queueId) is explicitly described.

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 explains scoping (using queueId vs all queues) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbx_queue_state or pbx_queue_waittime. It lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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