list_consumer_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers two non-obvious behaviors: empty groups can still retain committed offsets and lag with no active consumers to drain them, and topic filtering may scan every group because Kafka lacks a topic-to-group index. That performance caveat is genuinely useful. It stops short of 5 by omitting any auth, pagination, or cost/limit disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and returned fields, then the filtering and caveats. Four sentences with no filler; the final clause is slightly dense but each sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description supplies the scope, filter semantics, and the empty-group/scan caveats. What is missing is routing guidance relative to the several sibling consumer-group tools, which an agent would still have to infer.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (topic, states) are already fully documented, including exact and case-sensitive matching. The description's 'filter by exact topic or group state' restates the schema, and the only added semantics concern the cost of topic filtering rather than the parameters themselves; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the consumer groups on the cluster') and enumerates the returned fields (state, member count, topics consumed). It distinguishes itself from describe_consumer_group and consumer_lag only implicitly, via the word 'list' and cluster scope, so it falls short of an explicit sibling contrast.

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 says which filters exist ('filter by exact topic or group state') but never says when to choose this tool over describe_consumer_group, consumer_lag, or delete_consumer_group, and gives no when-not guidance. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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