rabbitmq_broker_get_overview

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

With no annotations, the description must declare behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, non-destructive). It only hints at output content but does not state that the operation is safe, idempotent, or has no side effects. This leaves ambiguity about potential impacts.

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 extremely concise (four words) and front-loaded. Every word adds value, but it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides a minimal but adequate idea of the tool's output. However, 'totals' and 'rates' are vague; a complete description might clarify what totals (e.g., messages, queues) and rates (e.g., publish, deliver).

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable as there are none. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Broker version, totals, and rates' clearly conveys the tool returns a high-level overview of the RabbitMQ broker. It identifies specific output categories (version, totals, rates), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific resources like queues or exchanges.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like rabbitmq_broker_list_queues or rabbitmq_broker_get_queue_info. The agent receives no hint about whether this is a quick overview suitable for monitoring or diagnostics.

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