list_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the filtering to active connections and the fields returned (client info, state, channel count), which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but this is a simple read-only listing tool.

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?

One economical sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds only meaningful detail about scope and output fields. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or filler.

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 parameterless listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the filtering condition, and the returned information. It could slightly expand on the exact output shape, but given the low complexity this is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('active RabbitMQ connections'), and the contained details ('client info, state, and channel count'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which target connections.

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 makes the tool's scope clear: it is for listing active RabbitMQ connections. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling set has no overlapping connection-listing tool, so confusion is unlikely.

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