Remember Me Collections

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the raw image field being the stored publisher URL (or null) rather than a computed display image, which is a non-obvious behavioral detail. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 structured with a clear summary sentence, a useful behavioral note about the image field, and a compact bullet-style Args list. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 output schema exists, no return format explanation is needed. The description covers tool purpose, parameter semantics, result nuance, and default behavior. It is fully self-contained for a browse/list tool.

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 description fully explains all 5 parameters: search term scope, language code prefix, ordering options with default, limit range (1-100 default 20), and offset for pagination. This compensates completely for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 browses published Bible verse collections, with specific verbs 'browse', 'search', 'filter', and 'sort'. It distinguishes from siblings (get_collection_detail, get_collection_metrics) by focusing on list-level browsing rather than detail or 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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: searching/filtering/sorting collections. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but sibling names imply browse is for list operations vs detail/metrics. Default ordering and parameter behavior offer practical usage guidance.

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?

With annotations already indicating a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, the description adds valuable behavioral context about the raw image field, clarifying that it is the stored URL (possibly null) and not the computed display image. It also mentions round-tripping with create_collection/add_verse, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement and an Args section. The additional explanation about image handling is relevant and earns its place, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing essential meaning.

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 tool has a simple parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It provides sufficient context for a read-only operation, including the image nuance, making it adequately complete for the agent to invoke correctly.

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 only provides the parameter name and type, with 0% coverage. The description compensates by explaining that collection_id is 'from browse_collections results,' adding relational context that helps the agent understand where the ID comes from and how to use it.

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 and resource: 'Get full details of a published collection including all verse text, references, and topics.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_collections (listing) and get_collection_metrics (metrics) by focusing on full detail retrieval.

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 context by stating 'from browse_collections results,' indicating that collection IDs come from the browse tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when/when-not criteria, making the guidance implied rather than explicit.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the list of metric categories which is more about output content than behavior. It does not mention pagination, errors, or other behavioral nuances, but given the strong annotations, it does not contradict them and provides modest additional context.

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 remarkably concise: one sentence defining the tool's purpose followed by a single parameter explanation. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. Every line 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?

For a simple single-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. The only potential gap is error handling, but given the simplicity and safety profile, this is not necessary for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only defines collection_id as an integer without a description, so the description carries the burden. It adds semantic value by stating 'The collection ID (from browse_collections results)', telling the agent where to obtain the value. While it does not specify constraints beyond the schema, the provenance guidance is useful and goes beyond the raw schema.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('community engagement metrics'), and enumerates the metric types (memorization progress, verse mastery, difficult verses, activity stats). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_collections and get_collection_detail, which serve 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 provides implicit usage guidance by indicating that collection_id comes from browse_collections results, implying a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with get_collection_detail or state when one should be preferred over the other, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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