describe_collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies this is a read-only operation (consistent with 'describe'), but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, or rate limits. The example output adds some behavioral context by showing the return structure, but lacks details on error handling, latency, or side effects.

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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured. The purpose statement is clear upfront, but the detailed example occupies most of the text. While helpful, the example could be summarized more concisely. The parameter explanations are well-organized but buried after the initial statement.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides good coverage. The parameter explanations are thorough, and the example output compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like error conditions or performance characteristics.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It provides clear explanations for all 5 parameters, including practical guidance for 'endpoint' (how to obtain it) and 'db_name' (when to pass or leave empty). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Describe the details of a collection.' This is a specific verb ('describe') with a clear resource ('collection'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_collections' or 'describe_cluster'. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks sibling comparison.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions that the endpoint 'can be obtained by calling describe_cluster' and notes when to pass or leave db_name empty, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_collections' or 'describe_cluster'. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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