get_queue_components

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds nothing on top of it — no return shape, pagination, or scope caveats. For a list tool whose structured fields do the heavy lifting, the description contributes essentially no behavioral context.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one required param, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the definition is minimally sufficient. There is no output schema, so some indication of what the listing returns and whether it is paginated would help, but it is adequate for a simple list operation.

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% and the single queueId parameter is documented as "Queue key or id" in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's "of a queue" phrasing adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (components of a queue), and the "of a queue" scope distinguishes it from the sibling get_components, which lists components more broadly. It does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as get_components or get_component. An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the queue-scoped variant.

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