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 states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination. The note about 'ignored in single-registry mode' adds some context, but overall behavioral traits are minimally described.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized: a clear purpose sentence followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the 'Args' explanations into the main text, but the structure enhances readability.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return value adequately, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or performance. Without annotations or output schema, more context on usage and limitations would improve completeness.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that explains both parameters: 'schema_id' as 'The globally unique schema ID' and 'registry' as 'Optional registry name (ignored in single-registry mode).' This adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples for 'schema_id' (e.g., integer range) or 'registry' (e.g., valid names).

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 subjects and versions associated with a schema ID.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), the resources ('subjects and versions'), and the relationship ('associated with a schema ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_schema_versions' or 'list_subjects' that might have overlapping functionality.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., single-registry mode), or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_schema_versions' or 'list_subjects' that might retrieve similar data. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement.

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