collection-storage-size

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

The annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as units, performance implications, permission requirements, or whether the size includes indexes. It fails to disclose any nuances that could affect the agent's interpretation of results.

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 with no extraneous text. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant information.

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?

This is a simple tool with clear annotations and a full parameter schema, and an output schema exists. However, the description leaves the meaning of 'size' ambiguous (e.g., storage vs. data vs. index size), which could lead to misinterpretation. The output schema may clarify returns, but the description itself is minimally sufficient.

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% with each parameter fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema already documents all three parameters (database, collection, connectionId) clearly.

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 gets the size of a collection, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like count or collection-schema, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself or clarify what type of size (e.g., storage, data) is returned.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like db-stats or count, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what the tool does without contextual usage advice.

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