appwrite_get_collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds value by specifying that the response includes 'attributes and indexes' (indicating scope of returned data), but lacks critical behavioral details: error handling when IDs are invalid, authentication requirements, or rate limiting constraints.

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 core sentence is appropriately concise, but the '[UNIFIED]' tag adds noise without conveying actionable information to the agent. The description is front-loaded with this metadata rather than parameter guidance.

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?

Inadequate given the high complexity (3 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema). While it hints at return content ('attributes and indexes'), the complete omission of parameter semantics leaves critical gaps in the information needed for successful 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?

Critical failure: schema description coverage is 0% for all three required parameters (site, database_id, collection_id), and the description provides no compensation. The agent has no guidance on what 'site' represents (URL, project ID, region?), or ID formats, making correct invocation impossible without external knowledge.

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 the basic action ('Get collection details') and mentions specific returned data ('attributes and indexes'), but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is metadata noise. It fails to differentiate from sibling tool 'appwrite_list_collections'—it does not clarify that this retrieves a single specific collection by ID versus listing all collections.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'appwrite_list_collections' or 'appwrite_list_attributes'. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing valid database_id and collection_id from prior operations) or typical workflow positioning.

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