Get Queue Fields

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals that include_local_fields triggers parallel requests and that the schema.required property indicates mandatory fields. This adds valuable behavioral context without contradicting 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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, explaining the result, and providing usage guidance. No unnecessary words, well-organized.

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 tool has an output schema (documenting return values) and only two simple parameters, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, how to use it (before issue_create), and how to interpret results. No gaps.

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 description adds meaning to both parameters: queue_id gets an example ('SOMEPROJECT') and context, and include_local_fields explains the behavior (parallel requests) beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, this still provides additional value.

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 fields for a specific queue, distinguishing between global and local fields. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('fields for a... queue'), and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like get_global_fields by mentioning it includes both types.

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 explicitly says to use this tool before creating an issue with issue_create, providing clear context. It also explains how to interpret required fields. However, it does not specify when not to use it or alternatives, hence slightly less than perfect.

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