List all non internal topics with their partition number and replication factor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without revealing important traits like whether the list is exhaustive, pagination, permissions required, or impact on the system.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but lacks critical details. It could be expanded with essential information without becoming overly verbose.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it fails to compensate for the 0% parameter description coverage. The description omits the parameter's meaning and default behavior, making it incomplete 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%, but the description does not explain the 'withInternal' parameter. The parameter's purpose is only hinted by its name, leaving ambiguity about its effect (e.g., whether it includes or excludes internal topics).

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 it lists Kafka topics with partition count and replication factor, which matches the tool name. However, it fails to mention the default exclusion of internal topics or explain the role of the 'withInternal' parameter.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no sibling tools are provided for context. The description does not indicate prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations.

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