Get connector topics

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

With no annotations, the description carries most of the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add a useful nuance: the result includes topics both read from and written to, not just one direction. However, it does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, explain what happens for an unknown connector name, or define whether the set is bounded by time or status.

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 sentence with no filler words, and its main behavioral qualification (read from or written to) is right at the center. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient without being underspecified.

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 simple getter with one required parameter and a clear output statement, the definition is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. There is no output schema, but the description effectively explains the return concept. It could additionally describe failure modes or empty-result behavior, but these are minor gaps for this level of complexity.

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 already fully documents the only parameter, "name", and describes it as "Connector name". Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no extra details about required naming formats, existence constraints, or case sensitivity.

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 explicitly states what the tool returns: "The set of topics a connector has read from or written to." This distinguishes it from get_connector_config, get_connector_status, and list_connectors, which concern settings, health, and registered connectors rather than topic usage. It lacks a full action verb in the description itself, but the title 'Get connector topics' supplies the action.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus get_connector, get_connector_config, get_connector_status, or list_connectors. It also does not mention prerequisites such as the connector already existing or being in a valid state. The only routing signal is the name itself.

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