collection-indexes

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool describes indexes, which is slightly beyond the annotation. However, no further behavioral details (e.g., whether it shows index usage stats or just definitions) are provided. With annotations covering the read-only nature, the description offers minimal extra value, scoring a 3.

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, short sentence that conveys the core purpose without any filler. Every word is necessary. It is front-loaded and efficient, scoring a 5.

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?

The tool is simple with two well-described parameters and an output schema present (though not shown). The description's brevity is acceptable because the schema and annotations cover most needs. However, a mention of common use cases or output structure would enhance completeness. Considering context signals, it is nearly complete, scoring a 4.

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 coverage is 100%: both parameters have clear descriptions ('Database name', 'Collection name'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Given full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate per guidelines.

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 'Describe the indexes for a collection' uses a specific verb 'Describe' and resource 'indexes for a collection', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'collection-schema' (which describes schema) or 'collection-storage-size' (which describes storage). The name 'collection-indexes' aligns well with the description, providing strong purpose clarity.

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 implies usage for retrieving index metadata but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find' or 'count'. There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling context, which is marginally adequate but leaves gaps.

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