Get Queue Fields

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds behavioral context: making parallel requests when include_local_fields=True. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, uses only four sentences, and each sentence adds distinct value: functionality, optional local fields, schema.required hint, and usage context. No redundant words.

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 an output schema (not shown but indicated), return values need not be described. The description covers the main behavior, optionality, and usage context. Minor omissions (error conditions, rate limits) but overall sufficient for agent use.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates parameter info present in the schema (e.g., 'like SOMEPROJECT', parallel requests behavior) without adding new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('fields for a specific Yandex Tracker queue'), and scope ('global fields and optionally local fields'). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_global_fields' by mentioning local fields, and explicitly links to use before 'issue_create'.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this to find available and required fields before creating an issue with issue_create tool.' It gives context without listing alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear.

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