rabbitmq_queue_message_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the purpose and offers no additional context such as read-only nature, return format, error behavior, or whether it requires an active connection. This adds no transparency beyond the literal meaning.

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 concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and communicates the core function efficiently, appropriate for a simple read-only count operation.

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?

The tool has a minimal schema and no output schema. The description does not mention return type (e.g., integer), behavior when the queue does not exist, or any dependency on connection state. For a tool with no annotations, this is incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% with queue_name described as 'Name of the queue'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation. For a single simple parameter, this is adequate.

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 'Get the number of messages in a queue' clearly states the action (get count) and the resource (a queue). It is specific and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rabbitmq_list_queues, which might also provide message counts.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rabbitmq_list_queues or rabbitmq_get_message. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., connection) or context that would help an agent choose this tool appropriately.

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