Get Queue Components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful content details about returned fields, but it does not describe pagination, error behavior, or other runtime traits. This is acceptable for a simple read-only call, but the description itself adds only modest behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 dense, purposeful sentences: the first states what is returned, and the second distinguishes a sibling tool and explains the practical use of the id. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers what is returned, the alternative tool, and the downstream use of the id. 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?

The single parameter queue_id is fully documented in the schema, including a format example ('SOMEPROJECT'), so the schema carries the parameter-meaning burden. The description does not add further queue_id semantics, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: it gets queue components and explicitly lists the included fields (lead, auto-assign flag, version). It also distinguishes this tool from queue_get_metadata, which only returns names and ids, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It explicitly names queue_get_metadata with expand=['components'] as the lighter alternative that 'names them only', implying this tool is for when richer component data is needed. It also explains that the returned id is what issue_create and issue_update expect, giving clear downstream context for choosing this tool.

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