list_queue_managers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output includes running status, but it does not disclose other behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, information-dense sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the key action and scope, and every word contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and read-only annotations, this description fully covers what the tool does and the environment it operates on. No important information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered by an empty properties object. According to the baseline for tools with no parameters, there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('列出'/'list'), a resource ('queue managers'), a scope ('mqweb server'), and an outcome ('their running status'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_queue_manager (which targets a single manager) and list_queues (which lists queue objects).

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 it is used to list all queue managers on the mqweb server, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_queue_manager, nor does it state any exclusions. Usage guidance is present only by implication.

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