broker_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the return type ('Dictionary with broker authentication status') and the kind of information provided (available, authenticated, experiencing issues). It implies a read-only operation, which is sufficient for this tool.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, usage scenario, and return type. It is appropriately concise with no fluff.

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 the tool's low complexity (no parameters, clear function) and the presence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description covers the essential aspects. It states what the tool does and what it returns, which is adequate for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by detailing the return format beyond the empty schema, clarifying what the tool outputs.

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 clear verb 'Gets authentication status' and specific resource 'all configured brokers', conveying the tool's purpose effectively. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'broker_comparison' or 'health_check', which could lead to confusion.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to troubleshoot authentication problems', providing a clear usage scenario. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, such as 'health_check' for general connectivity.

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