Remember Me Collections

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as explaining the raw cover image field (URL vs null, and that it's not the computed display image). No contradictions.

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 concise, with a clear summary followed by a brief clarification about the image field and an Args list. Slightly dense but well-organized; every sentence adds value. Minor improvement could be more structured formatting for the Args.

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 description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, pagination, sorting defaults, and a behavioral note about the image field. The presence of an output schema likely covers return values. For a tool with 5 parameters and pagination, the description is sufficiently 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Arg section provides full, clear parameter semantics for all 5 parameters (search, language, ordering, limit, offset), including filter behavior, sort options, and constraints. This adds significant value beyond the schema's type-only information.

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 'Browse published Bible verse collections' with specific verbs and resources, and outlines search, filter, and sort capabilities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_collection_detail and get_collection_metrics) by focusing on listing with pagination and filtering.

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 for browsing collections with search/filter/sort, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like get_collection_detail for single collection details. The usage is clear but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or direct sibling differentiation.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds important context about the raw 'image' field, explaining that it stores the publisher-provided URL (or null) and that round-trips with create_collection/add_verse. This goes beyond the annotations to clarify a potentially confusing behavior.

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?

Two short paragraphs. First sentence directly states purpose. Second paragraph adds necessary detail about the image field. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more concise by integrating the image caveat into one sentence.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), explanation of return values is unnecessary. The description covers the tool's purpose, notable behavior of the image field, and parameter source. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid collection_id) or whether the collection must be published as implied.

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 0% for the single parameter. The description says 'collection_id: The collection ID (from browse_collections results).' This adds minimal value by hinting where to obtain the ID, but does not explain its type, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already shows (integer).

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 clearly states 'Get full details of a published collection including all verse text, references, and topics.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes from sibling tools like browse_collections (which likely lists collections) and get_collection_metrics (which likely returns only metrics).

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?

Description provides a hint by mentioning 'from browse_collections results' for the collection_id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. No guidance on when not to use it or what alternative tools might be better suited for specific tasks.

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

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

While annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, the description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the specific metric categories returned (memorization progress, verse mastery, etc.), helping the agent understand the data scope without needing to inspect the output schema.

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 efficiently structured with zero waste: the first sentence defines the tool's purpose and output, while the Args section provides the single required parameter's semantics. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has only one simple parameter and an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values in prose), the description is complete. It could be improved by briefly distinguishing its metrics focus from 'get_collection_detail'.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (the 'collection_id' property lacks a description field), the description fully compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose and origin ('from browse_collections results'), giving the agent necessary context to provide the correct 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly defines the resource (community engagement metrics). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'browse_collections' and 'get_collection_detail' by specifying the exact data types returned: memorization progress, verse mastery, difficult verses, and activity stats.

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 a useful prerequisite hint that the collection_id comes 'from browse_collections results,' implying a workflow sequence. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling 'get_collection_detail' or exclusions for when not to use it.

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