rabbitmq_get_message

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself, and it does: it explicitly states the non-destructive peek capability and that auto_ack removes the message. However, it omits details about empty-queue behavior, potential blocking, or connection prerequisites, which are relevant for a tool interacting with a queue.

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, front-loaded sentence that starts with the verb and objective, then adds the parenthetical nuance about modes. It conveys all necessary information without unnecessary words.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., message content, null if empty) and any prerequisites like being connected. It also fails to mention the behavior when the queue is empty, which is an important omission for a 'get' operation.

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 schema description already covers 100% of the parameters (queue_name and auto_ack) with clear meaning. The description adds minimal extra value, merely echoing the 'with ack' concept already captured in the schema's auto_ack field. Baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'a single message from a queue', immediately conveying the tool's core function. It also distinguishes two consumption modes (non-destructive peek vs. with ack), which sets it apart from sibling tools like publish or queue management.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool versus alternatives by outlining the two modes (peek vs. ack), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'use rabbitmq_queue_message_count if you only need a count,' though the context is still sufficiently clear.

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