collection_stats

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the read-only safety profile, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds some behavioral context by listing the metrics the tool returns, though it leaves the meaning of 'index' ambiguous and does not describe output shape or freshness.

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 single concise sentence that front-loads the resource and operation and lists the relevant metrics in a scannable list. Every phrase contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 simple read-only statistics tool, the description is mostly adequate: the operation is clear, the parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the read-only behavior is covered by annotations. However, without an output schema, the return format is unexplained, and the ambiguous 'index' item could leave an agent unsure what statistic is reported.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds high-level meaning by explaining what the resulting statistics cover, but it provides no parameter-specific details 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 identifies the resource (collection) and the operation (statistics), and enumerates the specific metrics returned: number of documents, average size, storage size, and index. It is clear enough to distinguish from database-level tools like db_stats, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as db_stats, count, or list_collections. The phrase 'Statistik koleksi' implies collection-level scope, but there is no stated context, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools.

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