get_collection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get details' but does not specify what details are returned, whether it's a read-only operation, authentication requirements, or potential errors. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent about its behavior beyond the basic action.

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, direct sentence: 'Get details of a specific collection.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or fluff. This makes it highly efficient and easy to parse, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'details' are returned, how the tool behaves with different parameters, or any error conditions. For a tool that retrieves data, more context on the response format and usage scenarios is needed to be fully helpful to an agent.

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, detailing each parameter's purpose and constraints (e.g., 'collection_id' as required, 'access_key' for read-only access, 'model' with enum). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameters without extra context from the 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 the tool's purpose as 'Get details of a specific collection,' which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('collection'), but does not distinguish it from siblings like 'get_collection_folder' or 'get_collection_request,' which also retrieve details about related resources. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as 'list_collections' (for listing multiple collections) and other 'get_' tools for specific collection components, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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