List RabbitMQ Policy

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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about what the list is scoped to or what happens when a cluster or namespace has no policies. It does not contradict the 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?

There is no wasted wording because there is almost no wording — a four-word fragment. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision, and there is no structure to front-load.

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?

For a simple list tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema required, the bar is low, but that low bar is still not met: the description explains neither what is listed nor how the two parameters scope the result. Only the annotations keep this from being wholly inadequate.

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% and the description supplies nothing, so the meaning of the required 'cluster' parameter (its pattern only constrains format, not semantics) and the optional 'namespace' filter is left entirely unexplained. An agent must guess whether omitting 'namespace' means all namespaces and whether the filter is exact-match. This is the key gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 at all: no statement of when to call this instead of rabbitmq_policy_get (single policy) or rabbitmq_operator_policies_list (operator-managed policies). No prerequisites, no scoping rules, no exclusions.

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