collector_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and goes well beyond a simple read statement. It discloses that the operation performs no purchase/claim, makes one logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, refuses oversized configuration as a whole, and reports truncation for array responses limited to 100 rows and 256 KiB. This is extensive behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and contains important behavioral caveats, but for a zero-parameter tool it is noticeably verbose. Sentences about 'required inputs' and 'other declared filters' are generic boilerplate that add little value here, and the 15 KiB note is of marginal usefulness. Some trimming or tightening would improve the structure.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It specifies what data will be returned, how to treat asset paths and nullable URLs, how to handle oversized responses, and what request behavior to expect. Nothing critical appears 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 100% schema coverage, so the schema fully defines the input surface. The description adds general notes about required inputs and forwarded filters, but these are broad and not tied to any actual parameter. Per the zero-parameter baseline, a 4 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Read the complete public collector configuration,' followed by the concrete categories contained (page/slot limits, claim availability, shop metadata, featured accounts, cosmetic definitions). This clearly distinguishes the tool from its collector-related siblings like collector_binder, collector_stickers, and collector_player.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: retrieving full public collector configuration and related metadata. It also clarifies a key boundary by stating that reading shop or claim metadata 'performs no purchase or claim.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use this one relative to siblings.

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