Topic offsets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying what happens. It does accurately convey that this is a read-only-style view of offsets per partition, which is useful. However, it does not mention per-communication behavior such as permissions, topic existence handling, whether it is read-only, or how output is structured. It is not misleading, just thin.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose (earliest/latest offsets) and qualifies it with 'message backlog view'. There is no redundant wording or irrelevant details.

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 a single string parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the data being fetched: per-partition earliest and latest offsets. It could mention partition considerations more explicitly, but the core meaning is complete and aligned with the sibling domains.

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 the parameter 'topic' is already described as a topic name. The description adds the context that the output is per partition for that topic, which is useful but not strictly necessary for filling in the parameter meaning. It does not provide format or validation details, but the simple schema already covers that.

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 what the tool returns: earliest and latest offsets per partition for a topic. The 'message backlog view' qualifier gives it a distinct operational meaning. It is specific enough that the tool can be distinguished from sibling tools like describe_topic, even though it does not explicitly name them.

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 implies usage when wanting a message backlog perspective (earliest vs. latest offsets) for a topic, but it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of siblings like describe_topic or list_topics. There are no exclusions or alternative guidance, so the usage context is only implied.

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