Describe topic

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 only enumerates the topic details and does not state that the operation is read-only, mention any side effects, response characteristics, or permission requirements.

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 short and directly lists the relevant content areas, making it easy to scan. It lacks a proper sentence structure, but the word choice is efficient and there is virtually no filler.

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 single-parameter describe operation, the description gives a useful preview of the returned information, and the schema fully documents the parameter. However, with no annotations or output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is minimally complete rather than fully informative.

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 schema describes the sole topic parameter fully (100% schema description coverage). The tool description does not add any parameter semantics, but the parameter is already well defined, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists the specific topic metadata (partitions, replicas, in-sync replicas, non-default configs), making the resource and focus clear. It lacks an explicit verb, but the title 'Describe topic' plus the attribute list provide adequate purpose clarity and distinguish it from sibling tools like list_topics or topic_offsets.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the listed siblings, such as cluster_info, list_topics, or topic_offsets. The context is implicit at best and does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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