broker_info

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. 'Get broker statistics and health information' implies a read-only operation, which is reasonably inferable. However, it doesn't state what specific statistics or health data are returned, whether the call can fail for disconnected/missing connections, or any response format details.

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 concise sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately brief for the tool's simplicity. No redundancies or filler.

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?

For a single-parameter info-gathering tool with no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain what 'statistics' includes, what 'health' refers to, or how this differs from the many overlapping sibling tools (broker_stats, health_status, system_status, connection_info). Given the competitive tool landscape, more context is needed for correct selection.

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 single parameter connectionId is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('Get broker statistics and health information'), but it's somewhat ambiguous against siblings. With sibling tools 'broker_stats' and 'health_status' both present, this description doesn't clearly distinguish what broker_info uniquely provides versus those. The verb is clear but the scope differentiation is missing.

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 'broker_stats', 'health_status', or 'system_status'. With several closely related sibling tools (broker_stats, health_status, system_status), the description provides no differentiation or exclusion criteria. The agent is left guessing which tool to pick.

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