Get a Mudbase collection's schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the description clarifies what is returned (schema and permissions). However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention error behavior or authentication needs. For a simple read, this is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('full field schema and permission settings') and clearly identifies the target ('one collection'). There is zero redundancy.

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 get operation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return content (schema and permissions) and scope. It does not need to elaborate on return format since the tool is straightforward. Minor missing elements like error handling are not critical for this tool type.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), so the schema already explains projectId and collectionId. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond confirming they identify a collection. Since schema does the heavy lifting, the description meets the baseline but adds minimal extra value.

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 specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('full field schema and permission settings'), and a scope ('one collection'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like mudbase_get_document (which likely returns a document) and mudbase_list_collections (which lists collections) without ambiguity.

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 implies usage: call this when you need a collection's schema or permission settings. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions. The context is clear but not fully spelled out.

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