list_brokers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that values are never shown, only whether variables are set, which is a key security-relevant behavior. It also implies a read-only check of the server's configuration, though it does not partially ignore the read-only nature explicitly—still, the transparency about not revealing secrets is valuable.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose (list brokers), then adds a crucial caveat about not showing values. Perfectly concise and clear.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned: the list of brokers, their env var names, and configuration status. It omits specific output formatting (e.g., list vs table) but that is minor given the simplicity and the clear security note about not exposing values. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% of them (i.e., an empty schema). The description correctly adds no parameter details since there are none. Per calibration, 0 params baseline is 4, and the description is consistent.

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 explicitly states the tool lists every supported broker, the environment variables for its credentials, and whether each is configured. The verb 'list' and resource 'brokers' are clear, and the function is distinct from siblings like list_accounts or get_stats, which focus on other data.

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 conveys the tool's purpose clearly but does not explicitly state when to use it relative to alternatives or when not to use it. Since it is a zero-parameter list operation with no obvious exclusions, the context is implied but lacks explicit guidance for selection among siblings.

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