purge_queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses irreversibility, reads queue first for audit evidence (priorState), excludes unacked messages, and supports dry_run preview. This goes far beyond basic expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose and risk warning. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, behavior, dry_run, and parameter semantics. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, side effects, irreversibility, parameter meanings, and safety preview. It is fully sufficient for an AI agent to invoke correctly and avoid unintended damage.

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 schema has zero parameter descriptions, but the description's Args section explains every parameter: vhost (including default '/'), name (from list_queues), dry_run (preview), and target (default). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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 opens with 'Purge all ready messages from a rabbitmq queue', which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like delete_queue (which removes the entire queue) and list_queues (which only lists). The IRREVERSIBLE warning reinforces the destructive scope.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: irreversible purge, dry_run to preview, unacked messages not purged. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., delete_queue) but the meaning is implicit. The '[WRITE][risk=high]' header and 'No undo' guidance help the agent decide.

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