Discogs: list collection items

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that, such as authentication, rate limits, or response format. It does not contradict the annotation, but also does not enrich it with additional context.

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, front-loaded with the verb. Every word earns its place; it is concise and to the point.

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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters and no output schema. The description gives a basic purpose but omits crucial context such as folder_id default (0 = All folder) and pagination limits (per_page max 100). It also doesn't describe the return structure, which would be needed given no output schema. It is minimally viable but with evident gaps.

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 only 20% (only folder_id has a description). The description mentions 'sort and pagination options' but does not explain any specific parameters, nor does it mention folder_id or its default of 0. The enums and types are in the schema, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'releases in a collection folder', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like discogs_list_collection_folders (which lists folders) and discogs_get_collection_value. It also mentions sort and pagination options, further clarifying 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 provides clear context: use this tool to list releases in a collection folder with sorting and pagination. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough for an agent to infer when to use it. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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