xbox_collection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is credential-free, public data, and reads directly from the store's API. It also discloses the partial nature of collection IDs and the opaque cursor pagination. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it doesn't describe the return format.

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 four sentences, informative but not bloated. It front-loads the main purpose, then covers pagination and limitations. Every sentence adds value, though the phrase 'the same mechanism that powers xbox.com's own marketing hub pages' is slightly tangential. Overall well-structured and concise.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what a page contains. It mentions 'Returns one page' and implies the response includes next_cursor, but does not describe the items (e.g., game titles, metadata). It also omits any note about default locale or response structure. For a simple paginated collection tool, this is a moderate gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context for the cursor parameter by explaining pagination, but does not add additional meaning for id or locale beyond what the enum and descriptions provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers parameters.

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: getting one page of a named, editorially curated Xbox collection. It names specific examples (Top Free Games, etc.) and explains it's the same mechanism as xbox.com's marketing pages. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from the sibling tools like xbox_game or xbox_search.

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 explains the pagination pattern (passing next_cursor) and notes the partial list of collection IDs with no discovery endpoint. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like xbox_browse or xbox_search, nor does it state when not to use it. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparison to sibling tools.

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