rabbitmq_list_client_connections

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the Management-API-absent fallback (graceful degradation per ADR-0001) and the diagnostic scope, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what the degradation actually returns.

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-loaded purpose sentence, then routing note, then fallback note, then param tags. Slightly redundant with @param/@return duplicating schema and output-schema information, but nothing is padding.

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 two-param, no-required-inputs read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, fallback, and both params. Permissions and rate-limit context are the only meaningful omissions.

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 both parameters, including the alias default ('default') and the optional vhost filter semantics. No format examples are given, keeping it short of a 5.

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 in the first sentence (query external microservice client TCP connections, channels, throughput) and explicitly separates this tool from rabbitmq_list_connections and rabbitmq_list_configured_brokers. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 '[注意区分]' block gives an explicit when-to-use condition (diagnosing external app TCP links / channel leaks) and names the alternative tools for the other case. The stated split is a little confusing since rabbitmq_list_connections sounds like a sibling connection lister, but a routing decision is clearly provided.

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