analyze_collection_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the analysis includes relationship mapping and validation, which clarifies the scope, but it does not disclose output shape, error behavior, or side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler: the verb, resource, and key scope are stated immediately, and every word carries meaning.

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 has no output schema and overlapping siblings, but the description does not explain what the analysis result contains, how validation is reported, or when to prefer this tool. An agent would likely need to call it blindly or rely on tool names alone.

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 schema already documents collection, includeRelations, and validateConstraints. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the tool's general purpose, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and target ('collection schema') and names the two core activities: relationship mapping and validation. It is clear, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like analyze_relationships or validate_collection_schema, which overlap with those activities.

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 given about when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_collection_schema, analyze_relationships, or validate_collection_schema. The description does not mention use cases, preconditions, or alternatives.

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