Get 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 safety is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on what happens for a missing policy (error vs. empty), no permission requirements, and no mention of the operator-namespace variant that the sibling suggests.

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?

It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy; no sentence earns its place because no information is conveyed beyond the name. There is no front-loaded statement of what is returned or required.

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?

A four-parameter lookup with undocumented identifiers, no output schema, and a near-identical sibling (rabbitmq_operator_policy_get) needs scoping detail that is entirely absent. An agent could call it, but could not confidently predict which policy resource it targets or how to interpret a miss.

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 three of four parameters (cluster, vhost, name), yet the description provides no explanation of any of them. With low coverage, the description is expected to compensate for the schema gap, and it 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 when to prefer rabbitmq_policies_list (plural/list) versus this single-policy fetch, and no prerequisites such as required scope or vhost context. The only hint is the implicit singular 'Policy' in the name.

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