rabbitmq_list_configured_brokers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the returned addresses are '脱敏' (desensitized/masked), which is useful data-handling context, and the verb '列出' (list) implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions required, or other operational traits such as pagination or rate limits.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clarifying sentence about its relationship to rabbitmq_list_connections, and ends with a brief @return note. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant or wasted text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it states what is listed, what the addresses look like (desensitized), and how it differs from a sibling. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit read-only or permission information, though the list verb and output schema mitigate this.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is effectively 100% given the empty input schema. The description adds no parameter information because there are no parameters to describe, which matches the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 and resource: '列出...所有 RabbitMQ 目标 Broker 实例清单与脱敏地址' (list all configured RabbitMQ target broker instances and masked addresses). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling rabbitmq_list_connections by contrasting 'Broker 实例配置' (broker instance configuration) with '外部客户端 TCP 链路' (external client TCP connections). This gives an agent enough information to identify the tool's purpose 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 description names the alternative tool (rabbitmq_list_connections) and explains the context in which this tool is useful: to clearly distinguish broker instance configuration from external client TCP connections. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the distinction provides clear usage context. No misleading guidance is present.

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