get_queue_fields

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds the conditional behavior that include_local_fields=true also returns local fields. It does not mention permissions, ordering, or rate limits, so with annotations covering safety this is a modest addition.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste; the core purpose is front-loaded before the conditional parameter behavior. It is terse to the point of omitting useful context, but sizing is appropriate.

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?

Return values need not be described because an output schema exists, and the read-only annotation covers safety. However, with 0% schema coverage the description should do more to document queue_id and disambiguate from get_global_fields.

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 schema itself documents nothing. The description compensates for include_local_fields by explaining its effect (also returns local fields), but leaves queue_id entirely unexplained and gives no format hints.

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 specific verb+resource ('Получить поля очереди' / get queue fields) and clarifies the scope with the conditional inclusion of local fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_global_fields, so the queue-vs-global contrast is left implicit.

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?

It says what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over get_global_fields or other field-listing siblings, and states no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context must be inferred.

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