get_task_queue

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It notes the access restriction and return shape (success, queue), which is adequate for a simple read operation. However, it could mention whether the queue is read-only or if it locks anything.

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?

The description is relatively concise with a clear structure using sections. However, the parameter requiredness contradiction is a structural flaw. The title is null but not part of description.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description covers basic purpose and restrictions. However, the parameter error and lack of usage guidance make it less complete.

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?

The description adds a Japanese explanation for the caller_agent_id parameter, but it incorrectly states it as required (必須) while the schema defines it as optional with default null. This contradiction reduces value. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but the error undermines its utility.

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 description clearly states the verb '取得する' (get) and the resource 'タスクキュー' (task queue). It is distinct from sibling tools like enqueue_task or auto_assign_tasks.

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 mentions that the tool is only available for Owner and Admin, which provides some access context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over other queue-related tools or provide alternatives.

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