EMQX Cluster Status

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the tool provides cluster-wide node information, which is helpful, but it does not explain behavior such as whether the output is aggregated or how resource use is calculated. This is acceptable given the 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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states what the tool provides, and the second gives usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

This is a simple, parameterless tool with an output schema and strong annotations. The description sufficiently covers when to use it and what it reveals, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke appropriately.

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 there is nothing to document. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter clarification is needed.

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 resource (EMQX cluster nodes) and the contents (version, uptime, resource use), but lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'returns'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, though 'cluster status' implies a cluster-wide view.

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 tells when to start here: for health or version questions, and before any node-specific call to learn valid node names. This gives clear usage context and implies that node-specific calls should be used for deeper detail.

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