EMQX Current Metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the metrics measured, but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether values are instantaneous snapshots, how 'rate' is computed, or what the response structure looks like beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded sentence with parenthetical specifics. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only metrics tool with no parameters and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient detail about the measured metrics. The output schema (though not shown) would cover return values. A minor gap is the ambiguity of 'dropped' and 'rate' without further context, but overall it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 as current throughput gauges and specifies the metric types (messages/s in/out, dropped, rate). It distinguishes from sibling tools like emqx_metrics_history via the word 'current', but lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 word 'current' implies this tool is for real-time metrics, not historical analysis, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it vs alternatives like emqx_metrics_history or emqx_broker_stats. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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