get_queue_fields

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already conveys this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying exactly what is returned (custom field types/allowed values and lifecycle name), which is helpful given there is no output schema. It does not discuss edge cases or response formatting, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and clearly lists the returned data. No redundant or extraneous wording.

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?

For a simple metadata retrieval tool with one well-documented parameter, read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information: what the tool returns and what input it needs. It is complete for tool selection and invocation.

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 already fully documents the single parameter 'id' as 'Queue ID or name' (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional parameter detail, so the 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's function: retrieving custom fields (including types and allowed values) and the lifecycle name for a queue. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_queue and list_queues by focusing on queue metadata fields.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description: use this tool when you need the custom field definitions and lifecycle name of a queue. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_queue or other list tools, nor any mention of alternative paths.

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