get_queue_local_fields

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the field id format convention ('<queue id>--<field key>'), which is genuinely useful context, but omits return shape, ordering, or pagination. With annotations carrying safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the purpose front-loaded and the id-format note following as supporting detail.

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?

A simple single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema; the description supplies the id-format convention an agent needs to reuse the results. Nothing critical is missing, though naming the alternative sibling would make routing fully unambiguous.

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% for the single queueId parameter, and the schema already documents it as 'Queue key or id'. The description adds no further parameter detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('local (queue-specific) issue fields of a queue'). The 'local/queue-specific' qualifier distinguishes it in spirit from siblings like get_queue_fields and get_issue_fields, but it never names those alternatives, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied through the note that field ids 'can be used in create/edit issue requests', pointing to a fetch-then-write workflow. It does not state when to prefer this over get_queue_fields or get_issue_fields, leaving selection to inference.

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