mongo_find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation and mentions that results are relaxed EJSON, but it does not state permissions requirements, pagination behavior, limits, error handling, or confirm read-only safety relative to mongo_write.

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 three short sentences with no wasted text, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The return-format note is secondary but still relevant.

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 seven-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It gives only basic purpose, partial parameter syntax, and return format, but omits connection/database/collection semantics, limit behavior, and any operational or safety context.

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 0%, and the description only explains the EJSON format for filter, projection, and sort. It says nothing about connection_id, collection, database, or limit, leaving four of seven parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource: query documents from a MongoDB collection. It is clear enough for an agent to understand the core action, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling mongo_aggregate or explain why to choose find over aggregate.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as mongo_aggregate. An agent must infer that this is the general read/query tool from the name and description alone.

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