get_topic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with those. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as error cases, permissions, response format, or scope limitations beyond what annotations already imply.

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 only six words and front-loads the action and object without filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 read operation, the schema covers required parameters and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with no output schema and multiple topic-related siblings, 'details' is vague enough that the agent may not know exactly what data this endpoint returns or when to prefer it over get_topic_configs or get_topic_logs.

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%, so the parameter meaning is already carried by the input schema for both cluster and topicName. The description does not add any additional semantic detail about these parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a specific topic'), and the word 'specific' signals a single-topic lookup rather than listing. It is distinguishable from get_topics, though it does not spell out how it differs from closely related siblings like get_topic_configs or get_topic_logs.

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 offers no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_topic_configs, get_topic_logs, or get_topics. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or any explicit routing signal beyond the tool's name.

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