kafka_describe_topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what information is retrieved (partitions, leaders, ISR, config), which implies a read-only, non-mutating inspection, but it never explicitly states there are no side effects, nor does it mention error behavior for a non-existent topic or any permission 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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource before the parenthetical list of returned details. Every clause 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?

For a simple, one-parameter read tool with an output schema available, the description covers purpose and returned content adequately. The minor gaps are usage routing and explicit read-only/error behavior, which are not strictly required given the output schema carries return-value semantics.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema description coverage is 0% (just a 'Topic Name' title). The phrase '指定 Kafka 主题' implies the parameter identifies the topic to inspect, adding a little context, but it largely restates what the parameter name already conveys and gives no format or naming-convention guidance.

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 gives a specific verb (查询/describe) and resource (指定 Kafka 主题, a single named topic) and enumerates what it returns: partition distribution, Leader nodes, ISR replicas, and configuration. This implicitly separates it from kafka_list_topics (which enumerates topics) and kafka_cluster_info (which is cluster-scoped), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus kafka_list_topics, kafka_cluster_info, or the create/delete siblings, and no preconditions (e.g., topic must already exist) or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the purpose clause.

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