get_annotation_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral context. It only states the action 'Get' with no mention of error handling, required permissions, or potential edge cases (e.g., not found behavior). For a read operation, it implies non-destructiveness, but fails to disclose anything beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource clearly. For a simple retrieval tool, this level of brevity is appropriate and all content earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description should provide more context on the project parameter and usage scenarios. It is minimally complete but lacks depth.

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 has zero property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only clarifies `queue_id` implicitly via 'by ID', but leaves `project` completely unexplained. With two parameters and no additional info, the semantics are partially covered at best.

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 "Get a single annotation queue by ID" clearly specifies the verb (Get), resource (annotation queue), and scope (by ID). It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like list_annotation_queues (which lists multiple) and create_annotation_queue (which creates).

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 via 'by ID', suggesting it is used when a specific queue ID is known. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is foundational but not explicit.

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