get_queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Get queue details.' It does not mention read-only behavior explicitly, output format options, expansion behavior, or any potential side effects or permissions. While the verb 'get' implies a read operation, the description lacks substantive behavioral context (e.g., whether the queue_key must exist, what happens on missing keys, or how output_format affects results).

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, but for conciseness alone, it earns a 4 rather than a 5 due to lack of informative content.

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's 4 parameters, no annotations, and the large set of sibling tools, a three-word description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'details' include, how the expansion parameter works, or how this tool relates to queue_overview or list_queues. An output schema exists, but the description still fails to provide adequate context for an agent to confidently use the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (expand, queue_key, output_format, full_description) already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, but since the schema already fully covers parameters, a 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 'Get queue details' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('queue details'), making the primary function clear. It is distinct from siblings like list_queues and get_queue_user_permissions, though it does not explicitly differentiate from potential overlaps like queue_overview. The word 'details' is somewhat vague but acceptable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools (e.g., list_queues for listing, queue_overview for a broader view) or any prerequisites. There is no explicit or implicit context that helps an agent choose this tool over others.

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