list-bindings-exchange-exchange

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic listing action, but annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and result variability. The description does not mention any specific traits like auth requirements or what exactly is returned (e.g., routing keys, arguments). Without contradicting annotations, it provides minimal additional transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is exactly as long as needed. It contains no extraneous words and is easy to parse, fitting the conciseness ideal.

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 simplicity of a list tool, the description is nearly adequate, but it omits details about the return value (no output schema) and the exact nature of bindings listed (e.g., routing keys, properties). The lack of parameter documentation and no mention of result structure leaves minor but notable gaps for an agent invoking this tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for three required parameters, the description should compensate by explaining each parameter's role. The description only hints that source and destination are exchanges, but does not explain the vhost parameter or provide any additional meaning beyond the parameter names (e.g., format, special values). The lack of parameter details hinders correct invocation.

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 'List bindings between two exchanges' clearly states the verb (list) and the resource (bindings between two exchanges), and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like list-bindings-exchange-queue and list-bindings by specifying the two endpoints as exchanges.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list-bindings-exchange-queue for exchange-queue bindings, or list-bindings for all bindings). The agent is left to infer the scope from the name alone.

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