collector_binder

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses: 'One GET, no card metadata fan-out, purchases or layout changes', 'Does not auto-fetch continuation pages', and detailed size limits ('Array responses are locally limited to 100 rows and 256 KiB, with truncation reported... Oversized records are refused without partial fields'). It also mentions preserving fields and asset paths. This is comprehensive and transparent.

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 verbose and has redundancies. For example, 'Makes one logical GET request Does not auto-fetch continuation pages' is a run-on, and the oversized object restriction is stated twice ('Oversized objects are refused as a whole' and 'Oversized records are refused without partial fields'). Sentences like 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied; their effectiveness is not implied by the schema' are vague and clutter the message. It could be streamlined significantly.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers many operational details (size limits, no fan-out, no auto-fetch) and hints at the response (slots and stickers). However, it lacks explicit parameter descriptions, usage contexts, error behavior, and a clear statement of the return payload structure beyond the examples given. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description only mentions 'by player and binder reference' — enough to know the parameters are identifiers, but it does not explain the format of 'binderRef' (slug vs ID), constraints, or special requirements. The phrase 'Required inputs reflect tool policy' adds no semantic value. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 and resource: 'Read one public collector binder by player and binder reference'. It also limits scope with 'no card metadata fan-out, purchases or layout changes', which distinguishes it from broader tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so differentiation relies on the reader inferring from the 'one public collector binder' phrasing.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like collector_stickers, collector_player, or collector_config. The statement 'Required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements' is vague and does not help selection. The description implies it is for a single binder read, but no conditions or alternatives are given.

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