collector_stickers

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, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that it makes one GET request, does not fan out to card metadata, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, preserves original fields and relative asset paths, limits lists to 100 rows and 256 KiB, reports truncation in text and metadata, and refuses oversized records without partial fields. This is exemplary transparency for a read tool.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place, covering scope, behavior, limits, and error handling. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details constraints. It is longer than strictly necessary, but given the lack of annotations and the need to disclose behavioral traits, the length is justified. A 4 reflects that it is well-structured but not maximally concise.

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 tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it does not do, its limits, truncation behavior, and refusal behavior. There is no output schema to explain return values, but the description mentions the observed four rows and metadata, which is sufficient context for a single-parameter read tool. Nothing critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single required parameter 'player'. It does so by stating the tool reads the sticker-list route 'for one player', which clarifies that 'player' identifies the player whose list is read. It also notes that required inputs reflect tool policy and measured upstream requirements, adding context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't specify the exact format or constraints of the player identifier beyond the schema's minLength 1, so a 4 is appropriate rather than a 5.

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 tool reads the full sticker-list route for one player, with a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('sticker-list route'), and scope ('for one player'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like collector_stickers_tradeable and collector_player by noting it is the full list route with ownership/trade/list flags and cosmetic metadata. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: to read a player's sticker list, and it notes the route does not promise complete holdings and does not auto-fetch continuation pages, implying it is for a single bounded page. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for fetching more pages or complete holdings, so it lacks explicit exclusions, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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