nexus_get_collection_games

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return shape (JSON list of {id, name, domainName, modCount, collectionCount}) and mentions 'v2 GraphQL', which is useful context. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or potential errors. Given the strong annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate: it adds some behavioral detail but not extensive 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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then specify the return format. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is clear, well-structured, and easy to scan.

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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the core information an agent needs: what it does and what it returns. It mentions the fields in the JSON list. Minor gaps include absence of pagination or limit details, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations covering safety, it is sufficiently complete. The mention of 'v2 GraphQL' also adds context.

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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. There is nothing to explain about parameters. The description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters because there are none. According to the rubric, with 0 parameters the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add anything further in this dimension.

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 'lists games that support collections', specifying the verb, resource, and a specific constraint (support for collections). It also mentions 'v2 GraphQL' which hints at the technology. While it distinguishes from generic game listing tools like nexus_get_games by the collection filter, it does not explicitly name any sibling for contrast, so it misses the top score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where nexus_get_games or other game-related tools would be more appropriate, nor any exclusions or preconditions. The usage context is only implied (if you need games that support collections), but there is no explicit routing or differentiation.

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