rabbitmq_get_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the default is non-destructive sampling, that ack=True physically removes messages, and that this destructive path is gated by the --allow-write write-protection to prevent accidental in-flight data loss. It omits any note on permission/connection requirements or what happens on missing queues, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the most important behavioral fact (default non-destructive sampling) before the parameter list, then uses a conventional @param block. Efficient and well-ordered, with only mild redundancy in restating schema defaults.

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 no explanation, all four parameters are documented, and the destructive-mode risk is disclosed. The one real gap is the absence of any routing guidance relative to 'rabbitmq_peek_messages', which is the most likely confusion point for an agent.

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 documents all four parameters (queue, count, ack, connection). Notably it adds the '1-50' range for count that the schema lacks (schema has only a default), though the default values it restates are already visible in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('controlled pull of queue messages') and clearly contrasts its two modes (ack=False sampling vs ack=True physical dequeue). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the very similar sibling 'rabbitmq_peek_messages', which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 each mode applies (sampling by default; ack=True only when you intend to remove messages) and flags the --allow-write gate for the destructive path. But it never names the alternative tool ('rabbitmq_peek_messages') or states when to prefer one over the other, leaving the key sibling choice to inference.

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