kafka_cluster_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the informational read nature and the returned fields, which is helpful, but says nothing about permissions, whether it hits a live broker, latency, or failure behavior. For a zero-param read tool this is acceptable but leaves gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource and scope, and no filler. Every element earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the tool has no parameters and no annotations to reconcile. The description is complete for such a simple read-only introspection tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical content describes returned fields rather than inputs, which does not confuse the parameter story.

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?

States a specific verb (获取) and a precise resource (Kafka 集群整体元数据与 Broker 节点列表), enumerating the returned contents (Cluster ID、控制器、节点地址). It is clearly distinguishable from the topic/message siblings, which all operate on topics or messages rather than cluster-level metadata.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource — an agent can infer this is the cluster-introspection tool — but the description never says when to choose it versus the topic-level siblings, and states no prerequisites or exclusions. Adequate but not explicit guidance.

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