kafka_broker_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits by detailing what it detects (missing brokers, cluster ID mismatch, under-replicated partitions), providing context beyond a simple health check. However, it does not explicitly state that the action is read-only or non-destructive.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses bullet points for clarity. Every sentence provides value with no extraneous words.

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 no annotations and an output schema present, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It could be improved by noting the return format (e.g., list of issues or overall status), but the core detection capabilities are well described.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage. The description adds significant meaning by explaining exactly what the tool checks, compensating for the lack of parameters. It provides context that enriches the tool's purpose beyond the empty schema.

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 checks Kafka cluster health, specifying brokers, controller, and under-replicated partitions. It lists specific detection items like missing brokers and ClusterIdMismatch pattern, distinguishing it from sibling tools like kafka_consumer_lag and kafka_topic_info.

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 description implies usage for cluster health monitoring but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor does it provide 'when not to use' guidance. The distinction from siblings is implicit through the description's focus, but no direct usage advice is given.

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