Connection Brokers

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about what the tool retrieves (status, priority, configuration) and its purpose for health checks and diagnostics, without contradicting 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?

Two sentences: the first defines the tool's purpose, the second provides usage guidelines. Each sentence is information-dense with zero waste, and the structure is front-loaded with core functionality.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete in explaining what it does and when to use it. The lack of output schema is a minor gap, but the description compensates by detailing the retrieved information (status, priority, configuration).

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately explains that no inputs are needed, as it retrieves general broker information, adding semantic clarity beyond the empty schema.

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 the specific action ('Get connection broker status, priority, and configuration') and resource ('connection brokers'), distinguishing it from siblings by focusing on session brokering and load distribution rather than administrators, certificates, or other infrastructure components.

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?

It explicitly provides three use cases: 'check broker health, verify primary/secondary priority, or diagnose session routing issues,' giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like performance monitoring or session listing tools.

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