Knowledge Schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: it reads from local CollectionDef objects and requires no Weaviate connection, which tells the agent this is a fast, offline-safe call.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is stated first. The implementation note and the usage hint each earn their place.

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 one-parameter, read-only introspection tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing. Return-value shape is covered by the output schema, so the description need not describe it.

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% and the single `collection` parameter is already documented as 'Collection to inspect (omit for all).' The description's plural 'collections' loosely implies the omit-for-all default, but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return property schemas for knowledge collections.' An agent can immediately tell this is a schema-introspection tool, distinct from write tools like knowledge_ingest. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near-neighbors such as knowledge_stats or knowledge_query, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use rule: 'Use this before knowledge_ingest to discover expected property names and types.' That ties the tool to a workflow step. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming alternative introspection paths.

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