x_collection_get

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add extra context. It adds value by disclosing session and public-visibility-proof requirements, which are not visible in the annotations or schema. There is no contradiction with the annotation hints.

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 sentences with no filler, and the primary read scope is front-loaded before the follow-up requirement. Every clause adds useful information.

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 strong read-only/idempotent annotations and an output schema, the description covers the main call intent and the key precondition. Some gaps remain around what 'collection' refers to and how pagination works, but these are minor for a tool whose schema already exposes limit, cursor, and enum defaults.

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 description does some compensation by connecting 'list/community' to kind and 'posts/members/info' to view. But it does not explain collection, limit, cursor, or detail semantics, leaving several parameters under-documented.

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 ('Read') and a clear resource ('public list/community posts or members') plus the additional supported 'community info' view. It also maps cleanly onto kind/view values in the schema, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like x_post_get or x_user_get.

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?

It gives useful context by stating that a session and explicit public visibility proof are required, which tells the agent when the tool is usable. However, it does not provide when/when-not guidance or name any alternatives, leaving routing decisions to inference.

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