config_describe_queue

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is only three words. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, or any other behavioral characteristics beyond the implicit verb 'Get'. This is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise (three words) and front-loaded, with no wasted language. However, it is so sparse that it provides minimal value beyond the tool name, though the structure itself is efficient.

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 tool has three parameters (two required) and an output schema, the description is far too minimal to be considered complete. It does not explain what inputs are needed (beyond their names) or any context about the queue being described, leaving the agent to guess.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the parameters (instance_id, queue_id, region). The agent is left with only the parameter names to infer meaning, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 queue details' clearly identifies the operation as a read/describe action for a specific queue, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_queues. However, it lacks specificity about what 'details' include and does not explicitly differentiate from related describe tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_queues or config_describe_contact_flow. The description does not mention prerequisites like needing an existing queue_id, nor any context such as reading configuration vs. runtime state.

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