list_queue_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description only repeats the read-only nature with the word 'Read' and the GET endpoint; it adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, filtering effects, or response structure.

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 short and front-loaded, with the purpose line immediately followed by the endpoint and parameter list. There is minimal filler. However, the opening 'Read QueueDetails.' adds little beyond the tool name, so it is not maximally 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?

With an output schema, annotations, and two optional parameters, the tool is minimally invocable without additional explanation. However, the description fails to explain what QueueDetails represents, the effect of each optional parameter, or when to prefer this tool over list_queue / list_queue_status. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it merely restates the parameter names as query parameters. It does not explain what movie_id filters or what include_movie toggles. The only added value is the location of the parameters in the request.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Read QueueDetails.' It correctly identifies the operation as reading queue details. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_queue or list_queue_status, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_queue or list_queue_status. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. An agent must infer the appropriate use case entirely from the tool name.

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