mikrotik_get_queues

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states a 'Get' operation, which implies read-only, but does not mention any limitations, required permissions, response format, or whether it returns all queues or filtered results. The lack of detail leaves the agent guessing about potential side effects or constraints.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the action and object. There is no unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple read operation with one parameter, so the description is mostly adequate. However, the absence of an output schema means the agent doesn't know the exact return structure, and the description doesn't hint at whether it lists all queues or has any filtering. Still, the simplicity of the tool makes it reasonably complete.

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 100% of the single parameter, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond 'Mikrotik device ID'. Since the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently, the description's contribution is minimal, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('simple queue/bandwidth rules') from Mikrotik. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mikrotik_get_interfaces or mikrotik_get_routes.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: it is for retrieving queue/bandwidth rules from a Mikrotik device. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous within the Mikrotik tool family. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, but the intent is obvious.

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