GetCollectionsId

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 mentions expanding relations and selecting fields, which adds some behavioral context beyond a basic retrieval. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve a collection by its ID') and efficiently adds optional functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 (a retrieval tool with 2 parameters), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, error handling, and return values. For a tool in this context, it should provide more guidance to be fully helpful.

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 0% description coverage for its 2 parameters ('id' and 'fields'), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'expand the collection's relations' and 'select the fields that should be returned', which loosely relates to the 'fields' parameter but doesn't explain syntax, format, or provide examples. The 'id' parameter is implied but not explicitly addressed. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('a collection by its ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'GetCollections' (which likely lists collections) by focusing on a single collection via ID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other ID-based tools like 'GetProductsId', leaving room for slight ambiguity.

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 implies usage when you need a specific collection by ID, as opposed to listing all collections with 'GetCollections'. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other ID-based tools (e.g., 'GetProductsId') or mention prerequisites like authentication. The context is clear but lacks detailed alternatives or exclusions.

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