List configured event breakers

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds context by specifying the scope ('all configured Stream and Edge event breakers in all groups') and output format ('Return JSON'), but doesn't detail behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination. With annotations covering safety, this provides moderate additional value.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it highly concise and effective.

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 (one optional parameter, read-only operation, output schema provided), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource type and scope, and with annotations and output schema handling safety and return values, it covers essential aspects, though it lacks usage guidelines for sibling tools.

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 one parameter (server) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. Since there's only one parameter and an output schema exists, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't add semantic details but the minimal parameter count reduces the need for extensive explanation.

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 action ('Return JSON describing') and resource ('all configured Stream and Edge event breakers in all groups in the Cribl deployment'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like list_destinations or list_pipelines, which likely list other resource types in the same deployment.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or how it differs from sibling tools that list other resources in the Cribl deployment, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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