enterprise_collect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait: the tool requires a GSXT session when using the L1 recipe. Beyond that prerequisite, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions it needs, how it handles errors, or what side effects may occur.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence is cryptic ('L1:', '+'), but it does convey a concrete configuration recipe and prerequisite, so it earns its place despite being terse.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, with 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and multiple sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It omits parameter explanations, sibling disambiguation, and most operational context an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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% across 7 parameters. The description names two parameters with specific recommended values ('prefer_tier=l1' and 'platform=gsxt'), but adds no meaning for keyword, dims, depth, fields, or persona_id. This leaves most parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Collect') and resource ('enterprise info'), so the basic purpose is clear. However, 'enterprise info' is broad, and the definition does not distinguish this tool from siblings like enterprise_search or enterprise_collect_batch. The second sentence provides configuration hints rather than clarifying scope.

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 L1 line implies a specific usage recipe (prefer_tier=l1 with platform=gsxt) and notes a prerequisite (needs GSXT session). But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus enterprise_search, enterprise_collect_batch, or other siblings, and no exclusion criteria are given.

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