getCollection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a collection but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if the ID doesn't exist), or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. This exemplifies optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., collection details, error responses) or behavioral traits like side effects. For a retrieval tool in a server with many sibling operations, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively without trial and error.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'Collection ID' and type 'number'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra description.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a specific collection by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'getCollections' (which likely lists multiple collections) or 'getBookmark' (which retrieves a different resource type), missing explicit differentiation that would warrant a score of 5.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'getCollections' for listing collections or 'getBookmarks' for retrieving bookmarks, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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