get_group_topics

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the useful scoping fact that the result is topics for a consumer group, but it does not disclose return format, ordering, pagination, or error behavior.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the core action and resource are immediately clear.

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 simple, two-parameter read-only lookup with robust annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. 'Get topics' reasonably implies the return value, and the schema covers all required parameters; only explicit return-shape wording is missing.

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%, with 'Cluster name' and 'Consumer group name' already documented in the input schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 states a specific action, 'Get topics', and a specific resource, 'for a consumer group', which clearly distinguishes this from broader tools like get_topics or other group-level tools like get_group_members and get_group_offsets. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 phrasing implies this tool should be used when an agent needs the topics associated with a particular consumer group. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives such as get_groups or get_group_by_name.

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