rabbitmq_broker_select

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this tool changes the active broker for subsequent calls, which is a behavioral side effect. It does not detail error states or persistence but adequately describes the primary effect.

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?

Two short sentences, no extraneous information. The purpose is stated upfront, and the consequence is immediately clear.

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, its single parameter, and the presence of an output schema (not needing return details), the description fully covers what an agent needs: purpose, effect, and how to invoke it.

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 description mentions 'by alias', giving the sole parameter contextual meaning beyond the bare schema (which only specifies 'string'). However, with 0% schema description coverage, more detail about the alias's format or source would improve the score.

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 'switch' and the resource 'active broker', specifying the mechanism 'by alias'. It effectively distinguishes this selection tool from the many read-only siblings.

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 ('All subsequent tool calls will target this broker'), indicating it should be called before broker-specific operations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, though no sibling provides the same function.

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