find_queues

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions fuzzy matching as a behavioral trait and lists the return fields. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe to call without side effects, which would be helpful but is not critical given the context.

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 concise: two sentences plus a bullet list of return fields. It front-loads the usage verb and examples. Each sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundancy.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately lists the return fields. Both parameters are described in the schema, and the description provides sufficient context for using the tool. The reference to the sibling tool enhances completeness.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining that the query parameter supports both queue number and name with fuzzy matching. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'Queue number or queue name' description. The 'top' parameter is not further explained, but its purpose is clear from the schema.

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 purpose: searching call queues by number or name with fuzzy matching. It provides concrete examples of user queries that trigger this tool, and lists the return fields. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_queue_agents'.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool ('when the user asks about call queues') and provides examples of appropriate queries. It also gives a clear alternative: 'Use get_queue_agents for detailed agent info on a specific queue.' This helps the agent decide between tools.

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