rabbitmq_list_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: this is a read/list operation over configuration, and addresses are returned masked (脱敏), which the schema does not convey. It omits any auth/permission requirements or empty-config behavior, but for a zero-parameter read tool the disclosure is reasonably strong.

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 sentence, and the bracketed distinction note earns its space by preventing a wrong-tool call. The @return line is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but overall it is tight and well-ordered.

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, zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema present, the description covers scope, masking, and tool selection adequately; return-value detail is rightly left to the schema. The one gap is the unaddressed overlap with rabbitmq_list_configured_brokers.

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 no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add or omit on this dimension.

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?

It gives a specific verb+resource (list all RabbitMQ instance connections configured for this MCP service) and clarifies what the returned entity actually is — config-center Broker aliases, not live sockets. That is a real disambiguation. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similarly named sibling rabbitmq_list_configured_brokers, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent: use this for config-center managed Broker instances, use rabbitmq_list_client_connections to troubleshoot physical client TCP links. That is a clear when-to-use plus a named alternative. It stops short of covering the near-duplicate sibling rabbitmq_list_configured_brokers, leaving one routing hazard unresolved.

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