get_collection_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' sentence is largely redundant with structured data. However, the description goes beyond the annotations by describing the shape of what is read (scalar_params with name/default/id, vector_params with default object and default_rgba, plus counts), which helps an agent judge whether the call is worth making. No auth, cost or pagination caveats are mentioned, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the disambiguating sibling references, with no filler sentences. The one blemish is redundancy: the field list in sentence one is repeated almost verbatim in the 'Returns' block, which costs a little density.

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?

With no output schema present, the description supplies the return shape itself (collection_path/name/class, scalar_params, vector_params, three counts), plus the sibling routing. For a one-parameter read-only tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it or interpret the result is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented in the schema as the full /Game path to the MPC asset. The description implies the target is an MPC asset but adds no format or path syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 for schema-driven parameters applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read every parameter of a Material Parameter Collection asset') and immediately enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what this returns versus a generic asset reader. It also differentiates itself from the two similarly-named siblings (get_collection_param_info, get_mpci_info), which is the main ambiguity risk in this namespace.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: this tool reads 'every parameter', get_collection_param_info 'reads one parameter', and get_mpci_info returns 'the live per-world values'. The selection condition (all params vs. one param vs. runtime instance values) is fully spelled out rather than left to inference.

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