pmg_postfix_qshape

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States read-only nature, describes output structure (dict list with bucket counts and TOTAL row), and notes config requirement. Does not cover rate limits or output size, but sufficient for a simple monitoring tool.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose and config, second describes output, third gives sibling guidance. No redundant or extraneous information. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Output schema exists, so description need not detail return values. It adequately explains output format (list of dicts with domain and bucket counts, plus TOTAL row). Also mentions config requirement. Could mention default node behavior, but schema already covers that.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra detail for node or proximo_target beyond what schema provides. 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?

Description starts with 'get PMG Postfix queue shape', clearly stating verb and resource. It notes it's read-only and distinguishes from sibling pmg_postfix_flush, which handles re-delivery. This provides specific scope and differentiation.

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?

Explicitly says 'READ-ONLY' for inspection use and directs to pmg_postfix_flush for re-delivery. Also mentions config requirement (PROXIMO_PMG_*), helping agents decide when to invoke.

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