list_skipped_queues

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 indicate that the tool returns message counts and explains why skipped queues matter, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention default filtering behavior (e.g., nonEmpty defaults to true). The behavior is implied but not fully 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core action and output are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds valuable diagnostic context. Every word 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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states what is returned (message counts) and why the tool matters. Minor gaps include not describing the return shape or explicit vhost behavior, but the schema covers the parameters and the use case is clear.

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 both vhost and nonEmpty are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Find all') and identifies a precise resource ('MassTransit _skipped queues') while adding output detail ('with message counts'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_queues and list_error_queues, which target different queue categories.

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 second sentence ('Skipped messages indicate routing or serialization issues') gives a clear diagnostic context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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