describe_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the tool works from a cached schema inventory and refresh controls cache invalidation. The example 'After adding a collection -> describe_schema(refresh=True)' transparently signals that the default could serve stale data, which is exactly the kind of nuance an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 a compact, front-loaded block: the when-to-use sentence comes first, examples are formatted compactly, and the next-step pointer is a single line. Every line contributes either usage guidance or routing information, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, the readOnly annotation, and the fully-documented parameter, the description covers all the operational context an agent needs. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, why the parameter might matter, and how to proceed for deeper detail. There are no meaningful gaps.

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?

The schema fully documents the refresh parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving a concrete scenario where refresh=True is needed, making the parameter's semantic role in cache invalidation more actionable than the schema description alone.

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 states a specific verb ('inventory') and a clear resource ('all collections'), and places it in a distinctive context ('before querying or writing'). The examples reinforce the purpose by mapping natural-language questions to the tool, and the 'NEXT STEPS' line distinguishes it from describe_collection without any ambiguity.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('USE WHEN you need a quick inventory of all collections') and provides illustrative examples including a post-add scenario with refresh=True. While it names describe_collection as the follow-up for field details, it does not provide an explicit when-not-to-use statement, so it falls just short of the highest bar.

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