get_queue_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool scouts for problematic queues and surfaces potential issues, which suggests a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not clarify whether the output is limited to unhealthy queues or includes all queues with health flags, nor does it mention default vhost behavior, pagination, or other side effects. No contradiction exists, but the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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 compact at two sentences and front-loads the 'quick health check' framing before listing concrete criteria. The second sentence, 'Identifies potential issues,' is slightly redundant with the first, but the overall structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose and criteria, which is sufficient for a basic understanding. However, it leaves gaps: whether results are only problem queues or all queues with status, and what the default vhost scope is. These are minor but relevant for an agent to interpret results correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. Both parameters (vhost and minMessages) are already described in the schema, and the tool description adds no extra meaning about how they affect the health check. The description does not need to compensate because the schema documents them adequately.

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 function: a 'quick health check' that finds queues based on three specific criteria (no consumers, growing depth, high error counts). It identifies the resource (queues) and the condition of interest, and it is distinct from siblings like list_queues or get_queue, which simply list or retrieve without diagnostic intent.

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 phrase 'quick health check' implies a diagnostic, scan-style use case, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as list_error_queues, list_consumers, or list_queues. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, so the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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