get_collection_request

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 it 'Get details,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns error conditions, or what the output format might be. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's basic function.

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 complexity of 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or output structure, which are critical for an agent to use the tool effectively. The high schema coverage helps, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of other structured data.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying a focus on 'details' of a request. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of how parameters like 'ids' or 'populate' affect the retrieved details.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific request in a collection'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_collection' or 'get_collection_response', which also retrieve collection-related data, so it doesn't achieve full differentiation.

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, such as needing a valid collection and request ID, or compare it to siblings like 'get_collection' for broader collection details or 'get_collection_response' for response-specific data. This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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