get_topic_partition_infos

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the purpose, missing critical details like read-only nature, error behavior for missing topics, or authorization requirements.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core function. There is no unnecessary verbiage, though it could be slightly more informative.

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 abundance of sibling tools for topic partitions, the description lacks the specificity needed for correct tool selection. It does not explain what makes this tool's output 'detailed' versus other partition-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%, yet the description adds no semantic meaning for the sole parameter 'topic_name'. It does not explain valid values, format, or constraints beyond the schema's basic type.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('detailed partition information for a specific topic'), which distinguishes it from topic-level tools. However, it is somewhat vague compared to siblings like get_topic_partitions or get_topic_partition_metrics, as it does not specify what 'detailed' entails.

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 usage context, exclusions, or alternative tool guidance is provided. The agent receives no help in deciding when to use this tool over similar siblings.

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