get_topic_partitions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieving details from a 'v2 endpoint', which hints at API versioning, but lacks critical behavioral info such as whether it's read-only, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or how it handles errors. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded key information. It's concise with no redundant sentences, though the parameter explanations could be more informative without adding bulk.

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?

Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but with an output schema present (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and return values but lacks behavioral context and detailed parameter semantics, making it adequate but with notable gaps for effective tool use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the two parameters ('environment' and 'topic_name') in the Args section, but adds minimal semantic context beyond their names (e.g., no explanation of what an 'environment' entails or format examples). This provides basic mapping but falls short of fully clarifying parameter meanings.

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 the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('detailed partition information'), specifying it includes messages and bytes and uses a v2 endpoint. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_topic_metadata' or 'get_topic' by focusing on partition-level details, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_topic_metadata' or 'list_topic_metadata'. The description mentions it's for partition details, but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites, leaving usage unclear relative to siblings.

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