get_queue_fields

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds real value by disclosing the return content ('required flags and allowed values'). With no output schema present, this return-shape disclosure is the description's main burden and it carries it well, though it doesn't mention pagination or format details.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends the pre-creation hint via an em-dash clause. No redundancy, though it could trim slightly without loss.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description plus the readOnlyHint annotation and the parameter schema cover everything needed to invoke it correctly, and it even describes the returned field metadata in lieu of an output schema. Complete enough for the tool's low complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and the single queueId parameter is already documented as 'Queue key or id', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., accepted formats beyond what the schema says). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Get fields available/required for issues of the queue') and clarifies the scope is queue-level via the queueId parameter, distinguishing it from the issue-level get_issue_fields/g_get_queue_local_fields siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so a 4 rather than 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?

Gives a clear usage context: 'useful before creating an issue in this queue.' It tells the agent when to reach for it (pre-creation) but offers no explicit alternatives or when-not conditions, so it's clear context without exclusions.

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