oci_kafka_detect_under_replicated_partitions

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

The description fully discloses the return values (total partition count, under-replicated count, details of affected partitions with missing replicas), which is transparent given no annotations. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but the detection nature implies no side effects.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first defines the action, second explains significance, third lists return values. No redundant words, and the most critical information appears first.

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 description provides sufficient context for a detection tool with no parameters and an output schema mentioned. It covers what the tool does, why it matters, and what it returns. A minor gap is the lack of explicit cluster scoping, but the tool name implies it.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema is trivially covered at 100%. The description adds value by explaining the detection context and output, which is more than the empty schema provides.

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 detects under-replicated partitions, explains the condition (ISR count < replica count), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cluster_health or get_partition_skew by focusing specifically on replica synchronization.

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 explains that under-replicated partitions indicate data durability risks and lists common causes (broker failures, network issues, disk problems), giving users context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or compare it with alternatives.

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