List RabbitMQ OperatorPolicy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing beyond that — no note on scoping, pagination, result ordering, or whether the list is cluster-wide versus namespace-scoped.

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 sentence is short but not concise in a useful sense — it is under-specified rather than dense. There is nothing front-loaded beyond the title, and no structure addressing scope, required parameters, or return behavior.

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?

Although the tool is small (two parameters, one required, no output schema), the definition omits the required cluster argument and the optional namespace filter entirely. An agent could not confidently construct a call from the description alone.

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 0% for the two parameters, and the description does not mention either. In particular, the required "cluster" parameter (with its pattern constraint) and the optional "namespace" scoping parameter are left entirely unexplained, so the description must compensate for the coverage gap but does not.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling rabbitmq_operator_policy_get for single-resource retrieval, and no explanation of how operator policies differ from the plain rabbitmq_policies_list. The listing intent is only implied by the word "List."

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