get_queue_details

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: FIFO queues require MessageGroupId, and the conditional behavior of oldestMessageAgeSec from CloudWatch when runtime signals are enabled. Missing explicit safety profile (read-only) or error handling, but adds meaningful context beyond the empty schema.

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?

Well-structured: front-loaded with main output, followed by usage scenarios, specific warning, alternative tool, and conditional behavior. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Appropriate length for the complexity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains what is returned, gives usage advice, explicitly differentiates from one sibling, and mentions a conditional behavior. Could add more about error cases or return format (array of objects), but overall adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining output fields like oldestMessageAgeSec and their conditional nature, compensating for the lack of param info. It goes beyond just listing fields.

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 attributes (DLQ presence, encryption, FIFO, etc.), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_infra_overview' which provides only a quick count. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'all SQS queues' are precise.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (reviewing messaging architecture, investigating backlog, checking DLQ coverage, verifying visibility timeout) and an explicit when-not-to-use alternative ('Use get_infra_overview for a quick queue count only'). Complete guidance.

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