get_collection_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a retrieval operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. The return format is mentioned as a 'formatted string', which adds some behavioral context beyond basic purpose.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, usage guidelines, and parameter/return sections. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. The bulleted list enhances readability while remaining 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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and basic returns. It could improve by detailing error cases or output format specifics, but it's largely complete for a read-only tool with one parameter.

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. It adds meaning by explaining that collection_id is used 'to examine' the collection's structure, clarifying the parameter's role beyond the schema's basic type. However, it doesn't detail format or constraints for collection_id.

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 verb 'retrieves' and resource 'hierarchical document structure of a collection', making the purpose specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like list_collections (which lists collections) or read_document (which reads content), focusing on structure rather than content or metadata.

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 explicitly provides a bulleted list of when to use this tool: to understand organization, find document IDs, see parent-child relationships, and get an overview. This gives clear context for selection versus alternatives like search_documents or list_documents, though it doesn't explicitly name exclusions.

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