get_queues

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

With no annotations, the description must convey safety. It uses 'Get' and 'retrieves', indicating a read-only operation. It adds context about the role of queues and the API naming. However, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur or discuss any dependencies like authentication, but these are implied by the nature of the tool.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each sentence contributing: definition, purpose, and terminology note. No redundant filler. It is slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema exists. The description sufficiently explains what is returned (list of queues) and the terminology. It could mention that inactive queues are excluded by default, but that is covered by the schema parameter description. Overall, adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 single parameter include_inactive is fully described in the schema with default and behavior. The description's discussion of queue semantics provides background but doesn't add new parameter-specific meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get ticket queues (categories) from Autotask.' It further clarifies the purpose by explaining that queues are used to categorize and route tickets and that the tool retrieves them 'for reference when filtering or categorizing tickets.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tickets_by_queue, which retrieves tickets assigned to a queue.

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 states that the tool retrieves queues 'for reference when filtering or categorizing tickets,' implying its use case. It also clarifies the API terminology difference (TicketCategories vs Queues), which helps avoid confusion. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_tickets_by_queue for when tickets themselves are needed.

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