Add queue module

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

The description discloses key behavior beyond the annotations: it creates a specific module file and functions, uses Client.sendMessage/receiveMessage, and explicitly states the overwrite condition ('Does not overwrite unless overwrite=true'). This adds meaningful behavioral detail even though annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 tight, three-sentence summary that is front-loaded with the primary purpose, then details the file/function generation and the overwrite guard. Every sentence contributes value without verbosity.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, generated artifacts, and key behavior (overwrite). While it does not explain failure modes or build integration, it is complete for a focused module-generation tool among a broader toolset. No output schema exists, so return values are not expected to be documented.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning to parameters (e.g., 'point-to-point' for queue_name, overwrite behavior), but these are already largely present in the schema. Thus 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Add a queue helper module to an existing project', and differentiates it by specifying the JMS queue (point-to-point) and the exact files/functions created. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mq_add_topic and mq_add_listener.

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 gives solid usage context ('to an existing project', 'wired to the JMS queue') and clearly scopes it to queue-based point-to-point messaging. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for topics/listeners, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select correctly.

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