get_collection_forks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets a list,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., paginated list). The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action, missing key behavioral details for a tool with multiple parameters.

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, straightforward sentence ('Get a list of collection forks') that efficiently conveys the core action. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity, such as by hinting at pagination or sorting features.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., what data the list contains), behavioral aspects like pagination or sorting implied by parameters, or how it fits into the broader API context (e.g., relation to 'fork_collection'). For a list operation with multiple options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 clear documentation for all 5 parameters (e.g., 'collection_id' as 'Collection ID'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a list operation, so it doesn't enhance the schema's details. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without description assistance.

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 'Get a list of collection forks' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('collection forks'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_environment_forks' or 'fork_collection', leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this tool from related operations.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a collection ID), contrast with similar tools like 'get_collection' or 'fork_collection', or specify use cases (e.g., viewing forks after creation). This lack of context leaves 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.