list-channels

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not repeat these. However, it does not add any behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as return format, pagination, or the fact that no filtering is available. A score of 3 is adequate given annotations cover safety.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary, and no information is redundant.

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 simple no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what the tool does and its scope. However, it could mention that it returns a list of channel objects, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description correctly implies no additional inputs are needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 all channels in the RabbitMQ cluster' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the action and scope. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-channel' (single channel) and 'list-channels-connection' (filtered by connection).

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. It lacks explicit context for when not to use it or mention of sibling tools like list-channels-connection for filtered results.

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