get_exchange

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. '获取' implies a read operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the exchange does not exist, or whether the default vhost affects the lookup. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single short phrase with zero wasted words and the action front-loaded. Its brevity is not verbosity, but it tips into under-specification for a tool with siblings it must be distinguished from.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description still omits what is returned (e.g. exchange type, durability, bindings) and what happens on a missing name. It is technically callable but leaves the agent guessing about the result and failure modes.

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 100%, so both 'name' and 'vhost' (with its default '/') are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming-convention detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 phrase '获取交换机信息' names a specific verb (获取/get) and resource (交换机/exchange), so the basic action is identifiable. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling list_exchanges, which an agent could easily confuse with a single-exchange lookup. Adequate but not differentiating.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_exchanges or get_cluster_status, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing exchange. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name and required 'name' parameter.

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