get_schema_for_collection

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true consistently. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it runs an INFER query and returns a dictionary with collection name and schema, which is beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: first for action and resource, second for return value and implementation detail. No extraneous content.

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 that an output schema exists, the description adequately explains the return value (dictionary with name and schema) and the underlying mechanism (INFER query). It lacks mention of prerequisites like bucket existence, but for a read-only schema tool, it is fairly complete.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but parameter names are self-explanatory (bucket_name, scope_name, collection_name). The description mentions 'specified scope' but doesn't explain each parameter's purpose or format. With low schema coverage, more compensation is needed.

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 verb 'Get the schema' and the resource 'collection in the specified scope', and it directly contrasts with sibling tools like 'get_collections_in_scope' which return lists rather than schemas. The mention of 'INFER query' adds specificity.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_scopes_and_collections_in_bucket' or 'run_sql_plus_plus_query'. Usage context is implied but not explicitly clarified.

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