Fetch collection recipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real substance: deterministic ordering, a 50-snippet page cap, and the reassurance that nothing is executed. It does not describe error behavior for a bad slug or expired cursor, which keeps it from 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and scoped immediately after by ordering and page size. Nothing is redundant, though the cursor naming mismatch adds a small parsing burden.

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, the description appropriately describes the shape of the return (page of numbered steps with full snippet files, up to 50, plus continuation tokens). The only meaningful gap is that the required 'slug' parameter's meaning is never stated.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partly does. It explains continuation flow, but refers to 'nextCursor' and 'nextStep' rather than the actual parameter names 'cursor' and 'startStep', and never explains what 'slug' identifies or its naming constraints.

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 ('Fetch a page of your collection') plus the exact output form ('numbered recipe steps, with full snippet files'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_collections and search_snippets. The closing note that it 'does not execute the recipe' further disambiguates intent.

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?

Gives clear operating context: ordering is oldest-capture-first, pagination continues via cursor/step, and the call is non-executing. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (e.g., when to prefer list_collections or search_snippets instead), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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