Get Queue Fields

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful scope limitations: it is not the whole registry, system fields may be missing, and schema.required indicates mandatory fields. This gives an agent an accurate mental model of what the result will and will not contain beyond the annotation's basic safety signal.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states what is retrieved, clarifies local-field inclusion, explains a key response attribute, and then distinguishes the tool from its closest alternative. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

Given the read-only annotation, the output schema, and the simple two-parameter input schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned, what is excluded, how mandatory fields are indicated, and which sibling tool should be used for the broader scope. No critical behavioral information is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 the input schema already documents queue_id and include_local_fields thoroughly. The description adds the useful note that schema.required marks mandatory fields, but this refers to the response schema rather than input parameter semantics. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 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 gets the fields configured on a Yandex Tracker queue, including local fields. It further distinguishes itself from get_global_fields by explicitly noting this is not the whole registry. An agent can understand exactly what resource and operation this tool covers.

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 provides a clear alternative, get_global_fields, and explains when that alternative is more appropriate (when all organization fields are needed). It also notes that system fields may be settable without appearing here, which prevents incorrect usage. It does not explicitly address other queue-related siblings like queue_get_tags or queue_get_components, but those are clearly different resources.

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