rabbitmq_broker_is_in_alarm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'check,' implying read-only, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, return format, or any side effects. Minimal transparency.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but could include a brief note on return value or behavior without becoming verbose. Strikes a balance, but slightly under-informative.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, clear action), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not reference the output schema (which exists) or clarify what 'in alarm' means, leaving some ambiguity. Could be more 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?

Tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific info, but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there is nothing to improve.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks if the RabbitMQ broker is in alarm, using a specific verb ('check') and resource ('alarm'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like rabbitmq_broker_check_local_alarms, which target other aspects.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar check tools (e.g., local alarms, certificate expiration), an explicit when-to-use or differentiation would help an AI agent choose correctly.

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