get_collection

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (get) but does not reveal any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, potential performance impacts for large collections, or error conditions. The description only describes what it does, not how it behaves.

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 sentence of 14 words, directly stating the purpose without any extraneous information. It is efficiently front-loaded and every word is necessary.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose. However, it lacks hints about the return structure, failure modes, or the need for an existing collection. With many sibling tools, additional context about when to use this vs others would enhance completeness.

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 provides 100% coverage with a description for the single parameter 'collection' (collection name). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond naming the resource type. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but extra context (e.g., case sensitivity, requirement for existence) would be beneficial.

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 retrieves detailed information about a specific collection, including fields, metadata, and schema configuration. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_collections (which lists collections without details) but could be more explicit about the scope.

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 detailed information about a particular collection is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. A sentence comparing to list_collections or get_item would improve clarity.

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