Validate ActiveMQ broker

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details: TCP probe mechanics, support for failover URL forms, optional Jolokia web-console query, and graceful degradation. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loads the primary purpose, and contains no unnecessary filler. Every sentence adds meaningful detail about behavior and constraints.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers key behavior well, including protocol handling and graceful degradation. However, it does not specify the exact return format, which is a minor gap for a validation tool that may produce a structured report.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context (e.g., 'TCP connectivity probe') but largely restates parameter meanings already present in the schema, such as URL forms and list_destinations behavior.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Check that an ActiveMQ broker is reachable') with a specific resource ('at the given OpenWire URL'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (scaffold, build, deploy) by focusing on validation and connectivity probing.

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 clearly implies use when validating broker connectivity or listing destinations. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but sibling tools are not direct alternatives, so the context is sufficiently clear.

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