kafka_describe_topic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' strongly implies a non-mutating read operation, and 'current offsets' indicates a point-in-time snapshot. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, lack of side effects, or any permission or latency considerations, leaving some ambiguity for a tool that could conceivably have side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action, the resource, and the key return elements. There is no filler, and every clause contributes useful information.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a good sense of what the agent will receive (metadata about partitions, replicas, offsets). It lacks explicit read-only confirmation and usage guidance, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can invoke it correctly based on this description alone.

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 100%: the only parameter (topic) is adequately described as 'Name of the topic to describe' in the schema. The tool description adds detail about the return content but does not enrich the meaning of the topic parameter itself, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed metadata about a Kafka topic') and enumerates the metadata types (partitions, replicas, current offsets). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like kafka_list_topics (topic listing) and kafka_read_messages (message retrieval) without needing to 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 intended use—when you need detailed metadata for a specific topic—is implied by the description and the tool name, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings like kafka_list_topics or kafka_read_messages, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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