broker_status

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

Discloses return fields and the key behavioral detail of not starting hidden/denied upstreams. Since no annotations, the description covers the needed transparency for a read operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficient and complete.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields and behavior. Could add a note about interpretation, but overall complete for a simple status tool.

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?

No parameters to document. Schema already covers with description 'No user arguments accepted'. Description adds no param semantics, but that's appropriate given zero parameters.

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?

Clear verb+resource. Explicitly states what it does and what it does not do (no starting hidden/denied upstreams). Distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying health-check usage.

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?

Explicit use cases provided (health checks, support tickets, client validation). Does not list when not to use, but context makes it clear.

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