rabbitmq_list_exchanges

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 adds one genuinely useful trait — an output that may be a '降级提示' (degraded hint) rather than a full report — but omits auth requirements, connection failure behavior, and explicit read-only confirmation beyond the implied 'list'.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the @param/@return tags are functional rather than redundant, since the schema carries no descriptions. The tag block is slightly boilerplate-heavy but every line conveys information not present elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, and the @return line gives an adequate summary. For a low-risk read tool with zero annotation coverage, the description covers purpose and both parameters well; only usage routing against siblings is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it labels the connection alias with its default and identifies vhost as an optional filter, documenting both parameters. It stops short of format examples for vhost or what a non-default connection alias must reference.

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+resource (查询...交换机列表) and adds scope detail (type and persistence config returned). This clearly separates it from write-oriented siblings like rabbitmq_declare_exchange and rabbitmq_delete_exchange, though it does not name any 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — nothing says when to reach for list_exchanges versus list_queues or list_bindings, or under what conditions vhost filtering is desirable. It only documents parameters, leaving the selection decision entirely to inference.

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