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's behavior: it performs a 'safe stop and start sequence', waits for completion at each step, and returns clear success or error messages in English. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like service downtime or prerequisites (e.g., permissions needed), leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 sections like '[Tool Role]', '[Core Functions]', and '[Required Usage Scenarios]', but it includes redundant information. For example, the 'Returns' section repeats details already covered in '[Core Functions]' about success/error messages, and the initial sentence could be more front-loaded. Some sentences could be condensed without losing 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 (a destructive operation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters adequately. However, it lacks details on error handling beyond message format and doesn't mention authentication or rate limits, which are relevant for a restart operation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'service_name' by providing examples (e.g., 'HDFS', 'YARN') and clarifying it's the 'Name of the service to restart'. This goes beyond the schema's basic type information, though it doesn't detail constraints like valid service names or format requirements.

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 performs a 'restart' operation on a 'specific service in an Ambari cluster' with a 'stop then start' sequence. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'start_service', 'stop_service', and 'restart_all_services' by specifying it's for a single service restart, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool, listing four specific scenarios (e.g., 'When users request to "restart" a service', 'When troubleshooting or recovering service issues'). It also implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like 'start_service' or 'stop_service' by focusing on restart operations, though it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.

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