list_exchanges

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. '列出' implies a read-only, non-mutating call, but nothing is said about pagination, result size, empty-vhost behavior, or what a missing vhost returns.

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?

One tight sentence with no waste and the scoping qualifier front-loaded. Nothing superfluous, though nothing extra is offered either.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, minimal prose is defensible. Still missing is any notion of result volume, ordering, or whether the list is vhost-scoped recursively, which an agent would need before relying on it.

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% and the single vhost parameter is documented in Chinese with its default ('/'), so the schema does the work. The description adds only the meaning of the scope (exchanges vs other resources under the vhost), which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

Names a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (交换机/exchanges) plus the scoping dimension (指定虚拟主机/specified vhost), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not differentiate from siblings like list_queues or list_bindings, but the resource noun itself is distinguishing.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_exchange (single exchange) or list_bindings. The only hint is the implicit 'list all in scope' reading, which is left to inference.

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