rabbitmq_broker_get_bindings

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

As a read-only operation with no annotations, the description conveys that it retrieves bindings and can be filtered. It does not disclose potential performance implications of fetching all bindings, but it is adequate for a simple get operation.

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 entire description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the main action. No redundant words or extra information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the two usage modes (filtered or all) and the role of each parameter. The output schema exists to document return values, so the description is complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to all three parameters: queue and exchange as optional filters, vhost as the virtual host with default '/'. It explains the effect of omitting filters, which adds value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'bindings', and the optional filtering by queue or exchange. It distinguishes from siblings like get_queue_info or get_exchange_info which target single entities.

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 explicitly explains when to use optional filters (by queue or exchange) and the fallback behavior (returns all bindings). It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.

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