list_error_queues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that results include message counts, but its claim to find 'all' error queues conflicts with the schema's nonEmpty default of true, which means empty queues are hidden unless overridden; it also does not mention read-only status, permissions, or output shape.

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 short sentences with no filler; the primary action and resource are front-loaded and the second sentence adds a distinct operational purpose.

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?

The tool is simple, has optional parameters only, and the description gives the central purpose and return value concept (message counts). However, the missing disclosure of the nonEmpty default makes the description materially incomplete for correct use when the agent wants to see empty error queues.

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%, and both vhost and nonEmpty already have explanatory schema descriptions, so the baseline applies. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond saying counts are included.

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 states a clear verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('MassTransit _error queues') and states the output includes message counts, so an agent can tell this targets error queues rather than ordinary queues. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as list_skipped_queues or peek_errors, so it misses the chance to sharpen differentiation.

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?

'Helps identify services with unprocessed failures' gives a reasonable use case and implies it is for failure investigation. It does not mention when to prefer list_skipped_queues, list_queues, or peek_errors, nor does it state any exclusions.

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