rabbitmq_publish

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, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the exchange must already exist, whether message is fire-and-forget, or if publishing affects queues), leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and highly scannable, fitting the conciseness standard.

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 simple publish operation with full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks information about alternatives and behavioral expectations, which are relevant given the sibling tools. This leaves the agent with some uncertainty about proper usage.

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 already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all four parameters, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter meaning effectively.

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 ('Publish') and specifies the resource ('exchange with a routing key'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool rabbitmq_publish_to_queue. It directly conveys the core function without ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rabbitmq_publish_to_queue. It does not mention exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name and siblings.

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