get_eta_collection_stats

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals that the tool returns statistics and implies read-only behavior via 'Get', but it does not disclose return format, side effects, or any limitations. It adds some context but not deep behavioral detail.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and provides examples with 'etc.' No unnecessary words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient orientation by listing example stats and implying a summary object. It could be more explicit about return format, but the low complexity and clear examples make it adequately complete.

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?

The schema fully describes the only parameter 'collection' with 'Name of the collection to get stats for', achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add further clarification about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 operation with a specific verb (Get) and resource (statistics about a collection), including examples (document count, size, indexes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like count_eta_documents or query_eta_data, which have different purposes.

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 indicates the tool's purpose but does not explicitly address when to use it over related tools or mention exclusions. Usage is implied for retrieving summary statistics, but no alternatives or conditions are provided.

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