connect_broker

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. Connecting to a broker is a state-changing operation, yet the description doesn't mention whether it validates the connection, what happens on failure, whether it establishes persistent state (given connectionId), or how it relates to other connection-related tools. It also doesn't note authentication/reconnection behavior even though those parameters exist.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It's appropriately brief, though the 'with manual configuration' clause could arguably be doing more differentiation work that's currently heuristic.

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?

This is a connection management tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. For a tool that establishes a connection (likely with side effects and authentication implications), the description provides minimal context. It doesn't explain what a successful connection does, what the connectionId is used for, how reconnection settings feed in, or how this differs operationally from connect_from_config. With several closely related sibling tools, this needs more detail to guide 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all 7 parameters. The description references 'manual configuration' which frames the parameters as user-supplied manual settings, adding a bit of context to the parameter group. However, the description adds little per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already provide, though the baseline 3 is lifted slightly by the framing.

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 'Connect to an ActiveMQ broker with manual configuration' uses a clear verb (Connect) and resource (ActiveMQ broker), and distinguishes itself with 'manual configuration' which implies contrast with connect_from_config (likely config-file based). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings beyond this one phrase.

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 phrase 'manual configuration' implies this is for manual setups versus importing/config-file approaches, suggesting an alternative exists. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs connect_from_config or import_connections, nor when not to use it. The differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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