pulsar_topic_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get statistics and metadata' without indicating read-only nature, error behavior (e.g., if topic does not exist), or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotations, this level of detail is insufficient.

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 sentence that front-loads the action. It is efficient with no wasted words, but could incorporate brief usage notes without losing conciseness. Still, it earns a 4 for being appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 output schema or annotations, the description should provide a richer picture of what 'statistics and metadata' means (e.g., throughput, partitions) and any prerequisites. The current description leaves an agent with incomplete information to decide correctly.

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% (the single parameter 'topic' is fully described in the schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides ('Name of the topic to get stats for'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('statistics and metadata about a topic'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pulsar_list_topics (list topics) or pulsar_consume (consume messages). No ambiguity remains about the tool's function.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for inspecting topic stats, but does not mention exclusion cases (e.g., when to use pulsar_list_topics instead). Usage context is implied by the tool name and description, but not clearly stated.

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