simple_queues

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies read-only behavior via 'List' and 'see', and mentions the returned fields including bytes counters and disabled status, but it does not state permissions, authentication needs, pagination, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple list tool, but not rich.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, fields, and usage well, but it omits any mention of the required device_name parameter despite low schema coverage, which is a small completeness 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?

The only parameter, device_name, has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The description does not compensate by explaining what device_name identifies or its required status, leaving parameter meaning entirely to the schema title.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (/queue/simple), enumerates the fields returned, and explicitly distinguishes the tool from the mutation sibling set_client_bandwidth. An agent can tell what it does and when it differs from remove_simple_queue or set_client_bandwidth without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a clear use case (see existing bandwidth limits and traffic before deciding who to limit) and names the alternative tool set_client_bandwidth. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or any prerequisites, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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