list_exchanges

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the tool lists exchanges with binding info and supports filters, which covers the basic operation. It does not mention pagination, result ordering, default scope, or response shape, though these gaps are less critical for a simple read-only list 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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The primary function is stated first, and the filter options are summarized immediately after. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 straightforward read-only list operation with fully documented optional parameters, the description provides enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. It could be more complete by describing the output structure or pagination, but the tool is low complexity and the provided information is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the three optional parameters. The description merely restates the filter options ('vhost, name pattern, or type') without adding meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('exchanges'), and the included information ('type and binding info'). It also names the available filters, making the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like list_queues and get_exchange.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to list exchanges and can filter them. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when a sibling such as list_bindings or get_exchange would be more appropriate.

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