rabbitmq_list_queues

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. It adds useful detail about the returned metrics and the possibility of a 'degraded hint' response, but it does not disclose permissions, read-only nature, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before the parameter annotations. Every line earns its place, though the @param/@return block is slightly repetitive of schema defaults.

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 description covers both parameters. However, it falls short on sibling differentiation and behavioral safety details, which matter for an agent choosing between this and rabbitmq_get_queue.

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%, but the description compensates by documenting both parameters: the connection alias with its default, and the optional vhost filter. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not explain parameter formats or edge cases.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (查询/list), the resource (全部队列/all queues), and the returned metrics (积压消息、未确认数、消费者全景指标). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling rabbitmq_get_queue, which is also queue-focused.

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 implies that this tool is for listing queues, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling rabbitmq_get_queue or other alternatives. An agent must infer the context entirely.

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