Get queue info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description contributes no additional behavioral insights, such as what happens if the queue does not exist, pagination, or response content beyond 'configuration', which is vague. With annotations covering the primary behavioral trait, the description adds minimal value.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, standard get operation), this level of conciseness is effective and appropriate.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema (which explains return values), the description is incomplete because it does not clarify what constitutes 'configuration'. Sibling tools like get_queue_stats and browse_messages indicate distinct concerns, yet the description fails to inform the agent whether this tool returns settings, limits, or metadata. The agent lacks enough context to predict the exact output beyond the schema.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'queue' described as 'Queue name'. The description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra semantics.

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 'Return the configuration of a queue' clearly states the verb (return) and resource (configuration of a queue), which distinguishes it from siblings like browse_messages (which browses messages) or list_queues (which lists queues). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from get_queue_stats, which returns queue statistics, so the purpose is clear but not fully distinguished.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_queues or get_queue_stats. The description lacks any contextual cues, such as prerequisites or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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