get_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'compact' and 'normal' as behavioral context, but does not explain what 'compact' means or what the response includes. With rich annotations, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool, though the terms 'compact' and 'normal' could have been clarified without much added length.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The 'normal' qualifier helps distinguish from smart collections, and the output schema covers return shape. The only minor gap is the unexplained 'compact' behavior, but this does not prevent correct invocation.

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 carries the burden of explaining the parameter. It does not explicitly describe collection_id or how it selects the collection; the schema's title 'Collection Id' is the only semantic signal. 'Get one' only weakly implies that collection_id identifies which collection to fetch.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('one ... RomM collection'), and adds the qualifiers 'compact' and 'normal,' which help distinguish this from list_collections and get_smart_collection. It is not a tautology and conveys the core action, though it does not explicitly contrast with its siblings.

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 phrase 'one compact normal RomM collection' implies use when fetching a single normal collection by ID, as opposed to listing collections or retrieving a smart collection. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_smart_collection or list_collections, leaving some inference to the agent.

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