collection_summary

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

There are no annotations, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only overview with the listed data points, but does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, nor does it mention authentication or rate limits. This leaves room for ambiguity, though the nature of a summary implies a safe query.

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 that succinctly lists the key content categories. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete, covering the main summary dimensions. It could be improved by explicitly noting that no parameters are required and confirming the read-only nature, but these are minor omissions given the simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema covers all inputs at 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter details, but they are not needed; a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (collection) and specifies the scope of the overview (distinct owned, total copies, per-rarity, wildcard/currency balances). It lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like owned_cards, but the content clearly conveys a summary operation.

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 is provided on when to use collection_summary versus sibling tools such as owned_cards or missing_from_set. The description only states what the tool returns, not the appropriate context for invoking it.

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