Get Queue Metadata

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, such as explaining that expand can be used and that empty sections return as empty lists. It also notes that the tool is read-only by default, aligning with the annotation. No contradictions found.

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 concise, only two sentences, but packs essential information about the tool's output and the expand parameter's use. No fluff, all sentences add value.

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 that the output schema exists and the annotations provide readOnlyHint, the description covers the tool's purpose, the expand parameter's utility, and a practical use case (issue_close). It is sufficiently complete for a metadata retrieval tool.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, so the description doesn't need to add much. However, it highlights the purpose of the expand parameter, specifically mentioning 'issueTypesConfig' to get resolutions, which adds value beyond the schema's enum list. It also explains what happens when a section is empty.

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 that the tool gets metadata about a specific Yandex Tracker queue, including the queue name, description, default type/priority, and optionally expanded data. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like queues_get_all by focusing on a specific queue rather than all queues.

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 indicates when to use this tool, especially mentioning the expand=['issueTypesConfig'] option to get available resolutions for the issue_close tool, which implies a use case for issue closure. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the mention of an alternative (issue_close) provides some context.

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