rabbitmq_get_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the return contains deep metadata including dlx, TTL, and consumer details, but says nothing about read-only safety, required permissions, or behavior when the queue does not exist.

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?

It is compact and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by the parameter annotations. The @return line is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but overall it is efficient.

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 simple single-resource read with an existing output schema, the definition covers purpose and all parameters. The only real gap is the absence of any safety/error context, which is minor for a clearly read-only lookup.

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 does: it documents all three parameters (@param queue, connection default 'default', vhost default '/'), giving each a meaningful role. This meaningfully fills the gap left by the undocumented 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 states a specific verb (获取/get) and resource (指定队列/specified queue), and adds concrete scope by naming the metadata it returns (dlx, TTL policy, consumer details). This clearly distinguishes it from the list-oriented sibling rabbitmq_list_queues, though it never names that sibling 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?

Usage is only implied: the emphasis on '指定队列' (a specific queue) suggests it is for inspecting a single known queue rather than enumerating. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to rabbitmq_list_queues vs rabbitmq_get_messages/peek_messages, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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