Authorization Settings

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context about what the returned settings cover: unmatched-rule behavior, denial impact on connections, and cache settings. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Global authorization behaviour') and uses a colon to efficiently enumerate three specific aspects. Every phrase earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless read tool with a rich output schema and clear annotations, the description provides sufficient context to understand what the tool offers. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists and handles that detail.

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, so parameter-level explanation is unnecessary. The description focuses on the meaningful content of the settings, which is appropriate given the empty input 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 identifies the tool as exposing global authorization behavior, including default actions and cache settings. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'view,' but the scope is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like emqx_list_authz_sources and emqx_manage_authz_rules.

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 implies this tool is for reading global authorization settings rather than managing specific sources or rules, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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