describe_collection

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, lowering the bar for the description. The description adds useful scoping ('for one collection') and output content expectations, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as auth requirements, connection prerequisites, or limitations. No contradiction exists with the read-only annotation.

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 well-structured with USE WHEN, EXAMPLES, and NEXT STEPS, and it front-loads the purpose. The examples earn their place by making the usage concrete, though there is minor redundancy between the 'before write_record' example and the NEXT STEPS line.

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 an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and how to follow up with find_records or write_record. It does not mention the describe_schema sibling or any connection prerequisite, but those are not critical gaps given the annotations and output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'collection' parameter as 'Collection name or id.' The description reinforces this with examples like collection='posts' but does not add new semantic details such as naming conventions, identifier formats, or case sensitivity. Baseline 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 tool provides full field definitions, API rules, and relation targets for one collection, and the examples distinguish it from find_records and write_record. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from describe_schema, so sibling distinction is implied rather than fully stated.

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 'USE WHEN' phrasing explicitly defines the intended trigger, and the examples give concrete scenarios, including using it before write_record to learn required fields. It does not mention exclusions or describe_schema as an alternative for schema-level questions, but the guidance is still clear.

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