list_queues

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. It implies a read-only enumeration but says nothing about permissions/authentication requirements, whether results are paginated or complete, or how it behaves when the vhost has no queues or does not exist.

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 front-loaded sentence that identifies verb, resource, and scope with no filler. It is appropriately sized for so simple a tool, though it offers nothing extra.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It nonetheless omits behavioral context that annotations would normally supply, such as permission requirements and whether the listing is paginated or complete.

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 already documents its name and default ('/'), so the description only echoes the scope. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the parameter-level work.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (列出...队列) with scope limited to a virtual host, which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_exchanges, list_users, and list_bindings. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative or note the broader list_* family.

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 alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., does the vhost need to exist?), and no statement about when not to use it. The agent must infer the context entirely.

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