get--v3-domains-name-sending_queues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Get messages queue status' implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., queue metrics, status codes). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 'Get messages queue status' is extremely concise—a single phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.

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 complexity (a tool with one parameter but no schema descriptions or annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'messages queue status' returns, how to interpret results, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool in a domain with many similar siblings, this minimal description is inadequate 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 input schema has one required parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'name' refers to (e.g., a domain name, queue identifier) or its format. With low schema coverage, the description does not compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.

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 messages queue status' clearly indicates a retrieval operation (verb 'Get') on a specific resource ('messages queue status'), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what 'messages queue status' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get--v3-domain_name-bounces' or 'get--v3-domain_name-complaints', which also retrieve domain-related data. The purpose is vague but not misleading.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get--v3-domain_name-bounces', 'get--v3-domain_name-complaints') that also retrieve domain-specific data, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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