rabbitmq_list_bindings

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, and it is thin: it never states that this is a safe read-only operation, whether it requires broker permissions or auth on the named connection, or how the '降级提示' (degradation hint) fallback triggers. The @return line is the only behavioral signal, and it is vague.

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 in the first line and the @param/@return block is scannable with zero filler. The @return sentence is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but the overall structure is efficient and well organized.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema, the definition covers the parameters adequately, and the output schema handles return values. It is still incomplete on the behavioral side: no annotations, no permission/auth context, no sibling differentiation, and no explanation of the degradation fallback it advertises.

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 is the only documentation source, and it does document all four parameters – connection (alias, default 'default'), and vhost/queue/exchange as optional filters. That adds real filtering semantics beyond the bare schema titles, though it stops short of giving filter syntax or precedence when multiple filters are combined.

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 (查询/query) and resource (交换机与队列之间的绑定映射规则 – exchange-to-queue binding mapping rules), which is concrete and distinguishable from the plain list_exchanges/list_queues siblings. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from rabbitmq_bind_queue or rabbitmq_unbind_queue, which operate on the same resource and could be confused with it.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no reference to any sibling. The @param notes imply that vhost/queue/exchange are filters, but this is parameter semantics, not routing guidance – nothing tells the agent to call this rather than rabbitmq_bind_queue or rabbitmq_list_exchanges.

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