get_queue_autoaction

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond restating that it gets something, with no mention of permissions, return format, pagination, or missing/hidden autoactions.

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 one-sentence description is front-loaded and has no verbal waste, but it is so terse that it omits essential information needed for correct invocation. Conciseness is high, but structural completeness for the tool is weak.

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 tool with two required parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It does not clarify the identifiers, the relationship to queueId, or what 'parameters' means in the return context.

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 for undocumented parameters. It does not explain queueId, autoactionId, their types, or how they identify the target autoaction, leaving the LLM to infer both required parameters from schema names alone.

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 (Get) and resource (autoaction parameters) and scopes it to one item. It does not name or distinguish itself from the obvious sibling get_queue_autoactions, but the singular scope is clear enough.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_queue_autoactions, get_queue_autoaction_logs, or create_queue_autoaction. The singular retrieval intent is only implied by 'one autoaction'.

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