Connect cluster info

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the description's extra value is disclosing the exact return fields: worker version, commit, and Kafka cluster id. This gives the agent concrete expectations about what data will be available without an output schema. It adds useful context without contradicting the annotations.

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, direct sentence that lists the three key pieces of information returned. Every word is relevant, and there is no repetition of the title or redundant phrasing.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is complete: it states the resource, the exact fields returned, and is clearly differentiated from sibling tools that focus on connectors. No additional information is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. With no parameters required and schema coverage at 100%, the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing additional the description could meaningfully clarify.

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 identifies the resource (Kafka Connect cluster) and the specific fields returned (worker version, commit, Kafka cluster id), which distinguishes it from the connector-specific sibling tools even without an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'. The title reinforces the resource but the description itself makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It implies usage by stating what information it returns, but it never names alternatives, exclusions, or conditions under which a different tool should be chosen. For a cluster-level info tool this is a minor gap, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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