list_queues

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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: result ordering by backlog depth, the envelope's returned/limit/truncated fields, and the explicit warning not to treat a truncated result as complete. That truncation caveat is exactly the kind of context an agent needs and cannot get from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded scope statement followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections; every sentence carries information. The '[READ]' prefix is slightly redundant with readOnlyHint=true, but the structure is tight and skimmable.

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, the description correctly compensates by documenting the return envelope and the truncated flag. The remaining gap is that the shape of individual queue objects inside 'queues' is never described, so the agent knows the wrapper but not the payload.

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 0% — the schema exposes only nullable strings with no titles or descriptions — so the description carries the full burden and does so: it defines vhost (default is '/', omit for all) and target (a rabbitmq target name from config, omit for default). Both parameters' omit-semantics are spelled out, which is well 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?

States the resource (queues), the optional scope (one vhost or all), and a specific ordering rule ('deepest backlog first'), which is a meaningful discriminator for triage work. It does not explicitly name how it differs from close siblings like queue_overview, queue_detail, or rabbitmq_queue_backlog_rca, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains argument usage ('omit for all', 'omit for the default') but gives no guidance on when to pick this tool over sibling listing/detail tools (queue_overview, queue_detail, rabbitmq_queue_backlog_rca). Usage is implied by the READ tag and the sort order rather than stated.

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