queue_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It merely says 'get' (implying read-only) but doesn't state behavioral details: whether it requires an active connection, what happens if the queue doesn't exist, whether it blocks, or whether it's a safe read operation. For a stats/info tool the read-only nature is somewhat implied but not explicit about edge cases.

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 efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately brief for a simple stats-getter tool, though it could arguably add slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

For a queue information tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't indicate what statistics are returned, whether the queue/connection must pre-exist, or distinguish its scope from sibling tools like broker_info and broker_stats. The 2-param schema is simple, but the tool's return value and usage context are unspecified.

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 both queueName and connectionId having descriptions in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema—it doesn't explain the relationship between the two params or expected formats. Baseline 3 applies since the schema fully documents both parameters.

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 states 'Get queue statistics and information' which names the verb (get) and resource (queue statistics/information). It's reasonably clear but generic—it doesn't specify what statistics are included (message count, consumers, depth, etc.) or how it differs from sibling tools like list_queues, broker_stats, or broker_info which could overlap in purpose.

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. With siblings like broker_stats, list_queues, broker_info, and health_status, there's ambiguity about which tool retrieves which level of metrics (queue-level vs broker-level). The description offers no context about when this is the appropriate choice.

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