exchange_get_queue

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the 'get' operation from the name and does not disclose whether output is a list of queue objects, whether a server is required, or any permissions/impact details.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'Get transport queues' is the core action and 'key for troubleshooting mail flow' adds brief, useful context without bloating the 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin to fully inform an agent. It leaves unclear what the return data looks like, which server scope applies, and how this relates to the queue digest and queue-management siblings.

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 already describes both parameters (filter and server), including an example PowerShell filter, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it earns the baseline 3 rather than extra credit.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get transport queues') and identifies the PowerShell cmdlet (Get-Queue), so an agent knows what object is being acted on. It does not differentiate from the sibling exchange_get_queue_digest, which is also queue-related.

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?

'Key for troubleshooting mail flow' gives a general context in which the tool is useful, but it does not state when to prefer this over queue digest, retry queue, or suspend queue tools. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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