topic_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only/audit in nature ('audit', 'flags settings'), and indicates it compares configs against 'mission-critical best practice', which hints at judgment-based evaluation. The output schema exists to convey results format, reducing the transparency burden further.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. Each sentence adds distinct value: the first identifies the resource and focus, the second explains the tool's evaluation behavior.

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 read-only audit tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what is audited, the evaluation standard, and flags behavior. It could mention what 'best practice' entails (e.g., replication factor thresholds), but given the output schema conveys results, this is largely sufficient.

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%, but there is only a single parameter ('topic'), which is self-explanatory given the name and description. The description adds 'replication and durability config' context about what the audit examines, but the single string parameter requires no further elaboration. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the near-zero need for parameter explanation.

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?

'Replication and durability config audit for a topic' clearly states a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('topic'), focused on replication and durability configuration. It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like cluster_health (cluster-wide) and partition_state (specific partition view), though it could name an alternative explicitly.

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 the tool should be used when checking a topic's replication/durability settings against best practice, and 'flags settings that violate mission-critical best practice' clarifies its audit nature. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name siblings as alternatives (e.g., when to use partition_state instead for per-partition detail).

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