rabbitmq_declare_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the --allow-write write gate and names the return value, but omits other mutation-critical behavior: whether declaring an existing queue is idempotent, what happens on conflict, and required permissions.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the write-gate constraint and then a structured parameter list. The @param enumeration is somewhat verbose, but for a six-parameter tool with no schema descriptions it earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Combined with the write-gate disclosure and full parameter documentation, the definition is nearly complete for a mutation tool; the remaining gap is conflict/idempotency behavior on redeclaration.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: all six parameters are documented via @param tags with defaults and concrete examples for arguments (x-dead-letter-exchange, x-message-ttl). This is strong compensation, though it does not explain value constraints or formats beyond defaults.

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 states a specific verb (declare/声明) and resource (queue/队列), and highlights advanced capabilities like dead-letter routing and TTL. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as rabbitmq_delete_queue and rabbitmq_declare_exchange, though it never names them explicitly.

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 notes the operation is gated by the global write-protection flag (--allow-write), which is a useful precondition. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or contrast with alternatives like rabbitmq_declare_exchange or rabbitmq_bind_queue; usage is only implied by the verb.

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