collector_config

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does this comprehensively: no side effects, one GET request, no auto-fetch of continuation pages, array limits of 100 rows and 256 KiB, truncation reporting, refusal of oversized records, and preservation of relative paths and nullable URLs. This is far beyond a typical read-only description.

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 longer than average, but every sentence adds operational value: size expectations, side-effect safety, request behavior, response handling, and limits. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The only minor flaw is that it could be slightly tightened without losing information, but it remains focused and structured.

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 zero-parameter, read-only configuration tool with no output schema, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers what is returned, how much data to expect, the exact request pattern, side-effect guarantees, truncation rules, and preservation expectations. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter meanings to clarify. The description still adds context by explaining that required inputs reflect tool policy and measured upstream requirements, but with no parameters this is inherently a low-effort dimension. A 4 is appropriate because the baseline for zero parameters is high and nothing is missing.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('complete public collector configuration'), then lists concrete contents: page/slot limits, claim availability, shop metadata, featured accounts and cosmetic definitions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling collector tools like collector_player, collector_binder and collector_stickers, which all target narrower data.

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?

It explicitly states that reading this configuration performs no purchase or claim, warns against assuming filters are effective, and notes that oversized configuration is refused as a whole. It also explains that exactly one logical GET is made and continuation pages are not auto-fetched. This gives an agent clear guidance on when and how to use it safely.

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