mcp_analyze_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool samples documents and discovers field names, data types, and frequency. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (likely safe), potential side effects, or edge cases (e.g., empty container). The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Analyze the schema/structure of documents') and efficiently adds behavioral context (sampling) and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its 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?

Given no output schema, the description implies return values by mentioning 'field names, data types, and frequency.' This is sufficient for the agent to understand what to expect. It does not describe the exact format, but for a schema analysis tool, this level of completeness is good. The description covers purpose, behavior, and usage 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'samples documents' which relates to sample_size, but this is already described in the schema. No additional semantic value.

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's purpose: 'Analyze the schema/structure of documents in a container' and explains the sampling mechanism. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mcp_cosmos_query (which queries data) and mcp_create_document (which creates). The verb 'analyze' and resource 'schema/structure' are specific.

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 advises using this tool before writing queries: 'Use this to understand the data model before writing queries.' This provides clear context. It does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the guidance is strong.

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