get_queue_details

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

No annotations provided, so description bears the burden. It states it returns all queues with specific fields, implying a read-only operation. Could mention potential performance with large numbers of queues, but it's mostly transparent.

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 efficient sentences. First sentence states the action and result. Second provides usage context and alternative. No wasted words.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential information: what it returns and when to use it. It lists the specific fields returned, making it complete for its 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?

Input schema has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage. For zero-parameter tools, baseline is 4. Description adds value by explaining what each returned field represents, even though no parameters exist.

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 it returns all SQS queues with specific details (DLQ presence, encryption status, approximate message count, retention days). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_infra_overview by noting that tool only provides a quick queue count.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: reviewing messaging architecture, investigating a message backlog, checking DLQ coverage before adding a new consumer. Also provides an alternative: use get_infra_overview for a quick queue count only.

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