mq_queue_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the transport note ('via MQ REST') and the metric semantics, but says nothing about behavior on nonexistent queue names, partial failures in a comma-separated list, or permission requirements on the queue manager.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and the unit of measurement. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields (curdepth, maxdepth, percent full). Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers all inputs. Only failure/edge-case behavior is missing, which is minor for a read-only status probe.

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 100%: qmgr, queues and environment are each fully documented in the schema, including the comma-separated queue syntax and the list_environments pointer. The description's comma-separated note merely repeats what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (MQ queues) and a specific payload (curdepth vs maxdepth, percent full), which tells an agent exactly what it gets back. It is implicitly differentiated from the sibling mq_channel_status (queues vs channels), but no explicit contrast is drawn.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for checking queue depth/backlog. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus mq_channel_status or the CICS/DB2 status siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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