get_topic_lineage

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the purpose, without mentioning read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or potential large payloads. Minimal transparency.

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?

Extremely concise at one sentence, but under-specified for a tool with one parameter in a large sibling set. Conciseness does not compensate for the lack of helpful detail.

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 the existence of an output schema, return values need not be detailed, but the description does not clarify what 'lineage information' includes (e.g., producers, consumers, transformations). Incomplete for distinguishing from many related tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It mentions 'topic' but does not explain the topic_name parameter's constraints, format, or relationship to other tools. Fails to add meaningful context beyond the schema title.

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?

Description states 'Get lineage information for a topic' with a clear verb+resource. It differentiates from sibling lineage tools like get_consumer_group_lineage and get_producer_lineage via the name, but does not explicitly distinguish in the description text.

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 alternatives such as get_topic_partition_lineage or get_admin_topic_details. Does not state context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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