MCP-Ambari-API

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 effectively describes the tool as a retrieval/read operation (not destructive), specifies it provides 'real-time retrieval', mentions both success (formatted info) and failure (English error message) outcomes, and indicates the output is formatted for LLM automation. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or performance characteristics.

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 well-structured with clear sections ([Tool Role], [Core Functions], [Required Usage Scenarios], Returns) and each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by combining some sections, but the information density is high with no redundant content.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, usage scenarios, core functions, and return behavior. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return value structure.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 3. However, the description adds value by explicitly stating this is for retrieving 'overall status and basic information' without requiring any input parameters, which helps the agent understand this is a simple status query rather than a filtered search.

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 tool's purpose as 'Retrieves basic information for an Ambari cluster' and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for 'overall status and basic information' rather than detailed service/host/alert data. The [Tool Role] section reinforces this as a 'dedicated tool for real-time retrieval of overall status and basic information'.

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 [Required Usage Scenarios] section explicitly lists three specific scenarios for when to use this tool, including 'When users request cluster info, status, or summary' and 'When monitoring cluster health or auditing cluster properties'. This provides clear guidance on appropriate contexts without needing to reference specific sibling tools.

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