broker_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose whether this aggregates data across brokers, what happens if no connections exist, whether it's expensive/slow, or what the return format looks like. Given no annotations at all, a modest score is appropriate but it does state it covers 'all connections' which adds some scoping context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb. No wasted words. It could arguably add 'returns aggregated statistics across all configured brokers' but as written it's efficiently compact.

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?

The tool has no input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must carry all explanatory weight. 'Comprehensive broker statistics' is vague—it doesn't say what statistics are included (e.g., messages, connections, throughput, errors). For a tool with zero structural metadata, more specificity about what 'comprehensive' entails would be needed for full completion.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and with 100% schema coverage (trivially, since there are no parameters), the dimension is satisfied. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a 0-param tool since there is nothing to compensate for.

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 'Get comprehensive broker statistics for all connections' uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('broker statistics') and scope ('for all connections'). It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like system_status and health_status which suggest different scopes, though 'comprehensive' is somewhat vague about what statistics are actually included.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like health_status, system_status, or broker_info. The description does not mention when this aggregating view would be preferred over per-connection or per-broker tools, nor any exclusions.

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