MCP Kafka Schema Reg

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify details like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that might involve sensitive OAuth data.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It explains what the tool does but does not cover behavioral aspects like response format or usage context, which could be important for OAuth-related operations. It meets basic needs but could be more informative.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy and focuses on the tool's purpose.

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 as 'Get information about OAuth scopes and permissions,' specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'OAuth scopes and permissions.' However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'test_oauth_discovery_endpoints' or 'get_mcp_compliance_status_tool,' which might overlap in domain, so it lacks explicit distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'test_oauth_discovery_endpoints' or other info-retrieval tools in the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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