Get Collection (GraphQL)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the detail that the mod list is optional, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose anything else beyond the annotations.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and return fields, with the optional flag clearly marked. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of the title.

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 read-only lookup with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and the optional mod list. It does not describe pagination or the exact shape of the response, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete.

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 67%, with game and slug documented in the schema. The description adds meaning by clarifying that slug comes from the URL pattern and that list_mods controls whether the mod list is included, but it does not explain the game parameter's role or default behavior beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('collection'), and enumerates the exact fields returned: author, stats, comment thread id, latest revision, and optionally the mod list. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_collection_comments or search_collections, which serve different purposes.

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 by slug and mentions the optional mod list, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_collections or get_collection_comments. The context is clear enough for a straightforward lookup, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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