get_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety and idempotency are covered structurally. The description adds the result shape, but that is largely duplicated by the existing output schema, and it says nothing about failure behavior (e.g., id/slug not found) or how id vs slug resolution differs.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action and result contents front-loaded ahead of the disambiguation sentence. Every clause 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?

With one fully documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. The only gap is unstated error behavior for a missing collection, which is minor given the surrounding structured data.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Collection ID or slug to retrieve'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's 'by id or slug' restates rather than extends it — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (fetch one collection) and enumerates the returned fields — name, slug, workspace, parent id, child collections with prompt counts, timestamps — so the agent knows exactly what shape of data arrives. It also explicitly contrasts with the list_collections sibling, removing ambiguity.

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?

States the routing rule directly: use list_collections when browsing, get_collection when the target is already known. That is an explicit when-to-use/when-not pairing with a named alternative, leaving nothing to inference.

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