Get messaging queues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds no new safety information. It does mention the output includes message counts and status, which is useful context beyond the annotation, but lacks details like pagination defaults or whether hidden queues are included.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and output details. No waste, though adding brief parameter guidance could be done without harming conciseness.

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?

It lacks an output schema and only partially describes the data. With 5 undocumented OData parameters, an agent cannot determine valid filters, select fields, or ordering without external knowledge. The description covers the 'what' but not the 'how' to call effectively.

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 has 5 parameters (top, skip, filter, select, orderby) with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain what these parameters do, how to format OData syntax, or defaults. The agent has no guidance on using them, making this a significant gap.

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 lists JMS messaging queues and includes specific details (per-queue message count, active/exclusive status). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_jms_brokers and get_messaging_messages.

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?

It implies use for retrieving queue information, which fits the get_* pattern, but does not explain when to prefer it over get_jms_brokers (which lists brokers) or get_messaging_messages (which lists individual messages). No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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