get_queue_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses important behaviors: FIFO queues require MessageGroupId on SendMessage, and oldestMessageAgeSec comes from CloudWatch when runtime signals are enabled. It does not explicitly state whether data is live or cached (that appears in the parameter schema), but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 three dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence lists return fields, the second covers the FIFO constraint, and the third bundles usage scenarios, an alternative tool, and a best-practice ratio. Each sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, it is highly complete: it enumerates returned attributes, names concrete use cases, provides a tuning guideline (6× Lambda timeout), points to a lighter alternative, and notes a conditional data-source behavior. Nothing essential is missing.

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% — the only parameter (maxAgeSeconds) is thoroughly described in the input schema. The description text itself does not discuss parameters, so it adds no param semantics beyond structured data. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns all SQS queues with DLQ presence, encryption status, FIFO type (isFifo), visibility timeout, approximate message count, and retention days.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings by naming exact attributes and explicitly differentiating from get_infra_overview for queue counts.

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 it: 'reviewing messaging architecture, investigating a message backlog, checking DLQ coverage, or verifying visibility timeout is set correctly relative to Lambda timeout.' It also points to an alternative: 'Use get_infra_overview for a quick queue count only.' This is exemplary when/when-not guidance.

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