get_queues

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' indicates a read-only retrieval operation, and the optional flags signal that the response can be enriched, but the description does not discuss pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication, or whether application_id is required for scoping. Basic read-only transparency is present, yet key operational details remain implicit.

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 a single, tight sentence without filler. It front-loads the core operation and resource, then compresses the optional capabilities into a short parenthetical.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the return structure unstated, and the role of pagination and application scoping is not described in the description. However, the schema covers all parameters and the tool has no required arguments, so the description is sufficient for a basic list operation but with real gaps around return and scoping context.

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%, so the input schema already explains all four parameters. The description's mention of skills and operator counts adds only a brief non-technical paraphrase of with_skills and with_operatorcount, rather than deeper meaning beyond the 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 description identifies the resource ('ACD queues') and the operation ('list') clearly, and it even notes the optional enrichments (skills and operator count). It is not fully specific enough to distinguish from siblings like get_acd_state or get_sq_state without checking those tools, but the resource name makes the general purpose clear.

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 provides no guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling tools, nor does it state exclusions such as obtaining real-time ACD state from get_acd_state or heading to get_skills for standalone skill information. The usage context is only implied by the resource name.

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