rabbitmq_purge_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that this is a destructive purge of all pending messages, that a second confirmation is mandatory, and that an unconfirmed call safely degrades to an impact estimate (ADR-0002). It omits permission requirements and irreversibility guarantees, but the confirmation/dry-run behavior is genuinely useful context beyond the schema.

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 with the purpose and the safety constraint, followed by compact JSDoc tags. The tag block is slightly redundant with the opening prose but earns its place by documenting otherwise-undocumented parameters.

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 detailed here, yet the @return line still summarizes the two possible outcomes. For a destructive queue operation with zero annotations, the definition covers the operation, the safety workflow, and all parameters adequately.

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 documents all three parameters via @param tags, including the semantics and defaults of 'confirm' (False) and 'connection' ('default'). It adds meaningful meaning over a bare schema, though it does not clarify connection-alias resolution or name format.

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 ('清空/purge' the '指定队列') plus the exact scope ('全部待消费消息'), which cleanly separates it from rabbitmq_delete_queue (removes the queue) and rabbitmq_get/peek_messages (reads messages). An agent can identify the operation 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 explains the two-step confirm workflow but never states when to prefer this over siblings such as rabbitmq_delete_queue, nor any prerequisites beyond the confirm flag. Usage is implied by the destructive-purge semantics rather than explicitly guided.

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