list_uib_data_brokers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or describe other behaviors like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence with a clarifying parenthetical. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every part of the description adds value to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It states what the tool does but lacks crucial context about behavior, output format, and parameter usage. For a list tool with filtering parameters, more guidance is needed to be complete.

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 50% (only 'page_sys_id' has a description). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'data sources for pages' which loosely relates to 'page_sys_id', but doesn't explain parameter usage, defaults, or the 'limit' parameter. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('UI Builder data brokers'), with the parenthetical adding that these are 'data sources for pages'. This is specific and unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_uib_components' or 'list_uib_pages', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison to similar list tools (like 'list_data_sources' or 'list_uib_pages'). The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and parameters.

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