MCP-Ambari-API

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining the two-phase sequence (stop all, then start all), waiting for completion, and the return format with success/error messages. It doesn't mention potential risks like downtime or dependencies, but covers core behavioral aspects adequately for automation.

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 structured with clear sections ([Tool Role], [Core Functions], etc.), but contains some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'wait for completion' and return message details). The core information could be conveyed more efficiently without sacrificing clarity.

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 complexity (destructive cluster-wide operation), no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description does well by explaining the operation sequence, usage scenarios, and return format. It could mention risks or prerequisites, but covers the essential context for safe automation.

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 is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the operation's behavior and usage scenarios, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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 specific action ('restarts all services') and resource ('Ambari cluster'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like restart_service (single service) and start_all_services/stop_all_services (partial operations). It explicitly mentions the sequence 'stop all, then start all' which further clarifies the behavior.

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 when to use this tool: for 'bulk restart', 'cluster-wide restart', troubleshooting cluster-wide issues, and maintenance requiring full restart. This provides clear guidance on appropriate contexts and distinguishes it from alternatives like restart_service for individual services.

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