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 progress information but doesn't describe what the progress data includes (e.g., percentage, status, estimated time), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors, or rate limits. The alias mention adds some context but insufficient for a mutation-sensitive agent.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and its relationship to a sibling tool. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what progress information is returned, how to interpret it, or provide necessary parameter context. The alias mention is helpful but doesn't address core completeness gaps.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'task_id' parameter. It doesn't explain what a task ID is, where to obtain it, format requirements, or examples. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 progress of an async task' specifies the verb (get) and resource (progress of async task). It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_task_status' by noting it's an alias, but doesn't explain how it differs from other progress-related tools like 'get_statistics_task_progress' or 'get_workflow_status'.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning it's an alias for 'get_task_status', but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus that sibling or other progress-checking tools like 'get_statistics_task_progress' or 'get_workflow_status'. No context about prerequisites, timing, or alternative scenarios is provided.

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