get_annotation_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get a single annotation queue by ID', which implies read-only, but it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), permissions, or rate limits. For a simple getter, minimal transparency is acceptable but not sufficient.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded, and efficient. It could be slightly more informative (e.g., mentioning the output), but given the simplicity, it is concise and to the point.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it does not provide context on what an 'annotation queue' is or how the queue relates to other entities. Adequate for a simple retrieval but could be more complete.

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% for the single parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (queue_id is an Annotation queue ID). 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a single annotation queue by ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_annotation_queues' (which returns multiple) and 'create_annotation_queue' (which creates).

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 implies usage for retrieving one specific queue by ID, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_annotation_queues' or when not to use it. Basic usage context is missing.

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