Get DB Queue Backlog

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a specific behavioral note: 'Does NOT consume messages', which is valuable context beyond the generic read-only hint. It also mentions the output grouping, though that is likely covered by the output schema. There is no contradiction, and the added non-consumption detail enhances transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a critical caveat (non-consumption). Every word earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick scanning by an agent.

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 output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. The tool has three optional parameters, all documented in the schema. The description covers the core purpose and the key condition (non-RabbitMQ). It does not mention error conditions or pagination, but those are likely covered by the output schema or are acceptable omissions. The description is complete enough for effective use.

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 all parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description itself does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema already explains each parameter thoroughly, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate here. The description doesn't need to repeat parameter info, and it doesn't.

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 function: 'Returns message counts grouped by queue name and status from internal DB queues'. It specifies the verb (returns), the resource (message counts), and the scope (internal DB queues) with a condition ('when not using RabbitMQ'). It also distinguishes itself by noting 'Does NOT consume messages', which clarifies it's a read operation. This effectively differentiates it from any potential message-consuming tools, even though none are in the sibling list.

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 context on when to use the tool by mentioning 'when not using RabbitMQ', implying that other tools are used for RabbitMQ-based queues. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The reference to 'list_connection_profiles' in the parameter schema also gives contextual guidance, but this is outside the main description. Overall, usage guidance is clear but not as explicit as it could be.

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