rabbitmq_list_queues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the connection context ('connected vhost') and method ('Management API'), but does not describe return format, side effects, or error behavior. For a simple read-only list operation, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 with no filler. Every word adds value: action, object, scope, and method.

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 params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives the essential action but not the shape of the result (e.g., queue names vs. full attributes). It is sufficient for a basic list, but not fully complete given the presence of related tools that might imply different return data.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter information (none needed). This 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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('queues'), and the scope ('in the connected vhost'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rabbitmq_list_exchanges by explicitly naming queues as the target.

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 implied usage is to enumerate queues, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like rabbitmq_queue_message_count or rabbitmq_get_message. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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