yeastar_get_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It communicates a benign read operation and implies failure behavior by requiring a valid ID from the list tool, but it does not describe error handling for invalid IDs, permission requirements, or the response format. This is adequate for a simple get tool but not rich.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads what the tool does and returns, and the second states the prerequisite. Every clause 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 low-complexity single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (configuration fields), and the required input source. Minor gaps remain around full return shape and error behavior, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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%, so the schema already documents the single id parameter. The description adds value by naming the exact source tool (yeastar_list_queues) rather than the schema's generic 'corresponding list tool,' removing ambiguity about where the ID comes from.

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 ('Get') with a clear resource ('full configuration...for a single queue') and names concrete contents (strategy, timeout, member agents). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling status tools yeastar_get_queue_call_status and yeastar_get_queue_agent_status, which are about operational status rather than configuration.

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 description gives a clear prerequisite workflow ('Requires an ID from yeastar_list_queues'), telling the agent to first call the list tool to obtain the ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the queue status siblings, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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