list_ecc_queue

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world semantics, yet the description adds substantive context: payload is excluded by default, payloads can be very large, and they may contain sensitive data such as command output, host details, and credential references. It does not cover pagination, ordering, or result size limits beyond the limit default, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Three well-ordered sentences: resource definition, usefulness, then the payload default plus the security caution. The caution sentence is dense but earns its place on a security-sensitive parameter.

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?

With eight optional, fully documented parameters, no output schema, and safety annotations present, the description supplies everything needed to call the tool correctly, including the payload trade-off. Only the absence of any mention of result shape or volume (beyond payload size) leaves a small gap.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to include_payload — that omitting it avoids very large payloads and that including it exposes sensitive content. Other parameters get no elaboration beyond the schema, so it is an incremental rather than full improvement.

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?

Names a specific verb (Inspect) and resource (ecc_queue) and goes further by defining the resource as the job/result bus between the instance and MID Servers. That definition alone separates it from nearby siblings such as list_mid_server_issues, list_soap_messages, and list_acc_agents.

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 concrete usage contexts — debugging Discovery, integrations, and ACC data flow — which is clear guidance on when to reach for it. It does not name an explicit alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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