collection-indexes

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, as it does not specify output format, performance implications, or any constraints like permissions. It does not contradict annotations, but adds little value.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on output (e.g., index types, fields) and usage context, which could be helpful for an agent. It meets the baseline but does not fully leverage the opportunity to add 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%, with clear descriptions for 'database' and 'collection' parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these parameters relate to index retrieval. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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' clearly states the verb ('describe') and resource ('indexes for a collection'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-index' or 'drop-index', which manage indexes rather than describe them, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to use it (e.g., for query optimization or schema analysis) or when not to use it, nor does it refer to sibling tools like 'collection-schema' or 'create-index' for related tasks.

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