rabbitmq_declare_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds that a quorum queue is created by default, which is already stated in the schema's default for queue_type. It fails to disclose idempotency (declare behavior if the queue exists), error cases, or that this is a mutating operation, which is critical for an agent to safely invoke.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource name. It avoids fluff and is immediately scannable, making it appropriately concise for the tool's simple purpose.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand important context: what happens when a queue with the same name exists, whether rights/permissions are required, and whether the operation is safe or destructive. The schema provides parameter defaults but not behavioral context, leaving a significant gap in completeness.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema's field descriptions. It only repeats the queue_type default, which is already present in the schema, providing no additional value for parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Declare') and the resource ('a new queue'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like rabbitmq_declare_exchange and rabbitmq_delete_queue. It also adds a specific default behavior ('Creates quorum queue by default'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name. It does not differentiate from other queue-related tools (e.g., rabbitmq_delete_queue, rabbitmq_purge_queue).

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