MCP Kafka Schema Reg

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions backward compatibility and performance considerations, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe what 'mode' means in this context, whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Both sentences earn their place by adding value, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 context: no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on parameters, return values, and behavioral aspects like error handling or permissions. For a tool in a complex registry system, this leaves too much undefined for effective use.

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 input schema has 2 parameters ('context' and 'registry') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning their purposes are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what they are, when they're needed, or how they affect the operation. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the current mode of the Schema Registry.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('current mode of the Schema Registry'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_subject_mode' or 'update_mode', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: it notes this tool is 'maintained for backward compatibility' and recommends 'Consider using the 'registry://mode' resource instead for better performance.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (for backward compatibility) and when to prefer an alternative (the resource for better performance).

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