describe_topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It doesn't state what information is returned (partitions, configs, offsets), whether the topic must already exist, or error behavior when describing a nonexistent topic. However, there is an output schema, which is not shown here, so some transparency may be expected from that.

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?

One short sentence with zero wasted words. Truly concise. Not as fully specified as it could be, but it would be hard to call this verbose.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, 1 required) and has an output schema, which likely carries the return-value explanation. However, with no annotations and no guidance about prerequisites (topic must exist) or what 'describe' reveals beyond the output schema name, a bit more behavioral context would round it out. Adequate for a minimal tool but not enriched.

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?

There is only 1 parameter (topic) with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema's 'topic' string field. However, the single-parameter tool is simple—'topic' is self-explanatory in context—so the baseline for a simple single-param tool is reasonable but not enhanced.

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 'Describe a Kafka topic.' uses a specific verb+resource, clearly indicating the operation (describe) and target (Kafka topic). It's understandable but minimal, and given sibling tools like list_topics and create_topic, it doesn't explicitly differentiate what 'describe' returns vs 'list' — the verb does most of the work.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. With list_topics, create_topic, produce_message, and consume_messages present, there's no mention of when describe is appropriate (e.g., after creating a topic to verify configs, vs listing all topics to find it). Usage must be inferred entirely.

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