get_queue_trigger

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe read, and the description adds nothing on top of it — no return shape, no pagination/error behavior, no note that it fails for a nonexistent trigger. With annotations covering the safety profile, a description that only restates the operation contributes almost no extra 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 action and target front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient for what it conveys, though it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 two-parameter required lookup with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves nearly everything to inference: what the inputs identify, what comes back, and how failure is surfaced. It is not sufficient to call the tool confidently without opening the schema.

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%: neither queueId (string|number) nor triggerId (number) is documented anywhere. The phrase 'of a queue' weakly implies queueId is required, but the description gives no format, ID-type, or scoping detail to compensate for the fully undocumented 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?

The verb 'Get' plus resource 'trigger of a queue' tells the agent this retrieves a single trigger, which implicitly separates it from both get_queue_triggers (list) and create/update_queue_trigger. However, it never explicitly differentiates itself from those siblings, and it does not say what a 'trigger' is or what identifying information is needed.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_queue_triggers, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only steer is the name itself, so the agent must infer usage entirely.

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