get_ecc_queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Inspect' is consistent with those. It adds context that the queue contains MID server probes/sensors, which is useful, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or error handling. Given the annotations cover safety, the description adds some but not extensive value.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists the filtering dimensions. It is concise with no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient for an agent 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 read-only inspection tool with all parameters documented in the schema and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context. It identifies the resource and the key filtering options. It does not describe the return format, but since there is no output schema and the tool is straightforward, this is a minor gap.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description echoes the filtering dimensions (state, agent, topic) but adds no new syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the tool inspects the ECC queue, a specific resource, and mentions it covers MID server probes/sensors with filtering by state, agent, or topic. It uses the verb 'Inspect' which is precise. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the resource and action are specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like 'resubmit_ecc_probe'.

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 implies usage when you need to examine the ECC queue, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'resubmit_ecc_probe' or 'list_mid_servers'. It lacks exclusions or conditions, leaving the decision largely to the agent's inference.

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