diagnose_collection_access

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. 'Diagnose' is consistent with the read-only annotation and adds the scope of investigation, though it does not disclose output format, limits, or side effects. No contradiction.

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 words. It is appropriately brief, though it is too terse to carry richer context; this is efficient rather than exceptional.

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?

For a read-only diagnostic tool with fully documented parameters, this is minimally adequate: an agent can identify the collection and optional checks to run. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe the diagnostic result or how to interpret it, leaving a meaningful gap.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear meaning in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score 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?

The description states a clear verb ('diagnose') applied to a specific resource ('collection access issues and permissions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_collection_schema and analyze_relationships, which target schema or relationships rather than access controls.

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 usage guidance is provided: the description does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or what prerequisites are required. The only guidance is implied by the word 'diagnose', which is weak given the large set of sibling diagnostic tools.

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