get_queue_local_field

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden. It adds nothing about error behavior for a missing field/queue, permissions required, or what is returned, leaving a read-only lookup largely unexplained.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, the brevity edges into under-specification rather than economical completeness.

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 two-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the minimum is arguably met, but return shape and failure modes for a missing field are absent.

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 only 50%: fieldKey is documented but queueId is not. The phrase "by its key" loosely maps to fieldKey but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, and queueId gets no meaning from either source.

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 (Get) and resource (one local field of a queue) with the lookup key named. It is distinguishable from create/update_queue_local_field by the verb, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the plural sibling get_queue_local_fields.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives or prerequisites mentioned. The agent must infer that this is for single-field retrieval versus the list-returning sibling.

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