cosmosdb_get_container_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains that the tool returns metadata and describes authentication fallback (key_env_var or DefaultAzureCredential), but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or free of side effects. It also does not mention error conditions or rate limits.

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 three sentences: first states purpose, second lists returns, third explains account and auth. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and auth. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., container must exist). However, the output schema presumably documents return structure, reducing the need for that detail. Overall, it is mostly complete for a read-only metadata tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'account' can be a short name or full endpoint URL and describes the 'key_env_var' parameter's role and default. The other parameters (database, container) are straightforward and need no additional explanation. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 tool retrieves metadata for a Cosmos DB container and lists specific return fields (partition key path, indexing policy, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cosmosdb_list_containers which list containers rather than return detailed metadata.

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 usage when container metadata is needed and explains authentication behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cosmosdb_list_containers or cosmosdb_query_items. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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