get_api_collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get a specific collection', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic retrieval.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be more front-loaded with key details, such as specifying the API context or differentiating from siblings, but it's appropriately sized for its minimal content.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'collection' entails, how it differs from other collection-related tools, or what the return value includes, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'apiId', 'collectionId', and 'versionId' documented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationships between these IDs or why 'versionId' is required for API viewers. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool 'Get a specific collection from an API', which provides a verb ('Get') and resource ('collection'), but it's vague about what 'collection' means in this API context and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_collection' or 'list_collections'. It specifies 'from an API' but lacks detail about the API's nature or the collection's content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an API ID or collection ID, or differentiate it from similar tools like 'get_collection' or 'list_collections' in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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