find_in_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered externally. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the returned fields (folder, rating, fields) and the empty-list edge case when the release is not owned. It stops short of any auth, rate-limit, or pagination context.

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?

Two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core return content, with no filler. The stray line break is cosmetic. It is appropriately sized, though it wastes no words only because it omits parameters.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations about returns, the description usefully sketches the return shape and the empty case. But it leaves the username parameter unexplained and says nothing about ordering or pagination for what could be multiple copies. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 and largely does not. It implies the release_id scope via 'of a release' but never names the parameter, and the username parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description. An agent cannot tell what username does or whether it defaults to the authenticated user.

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 a specific resource and scope: every copy/instance of a release in the collection, including folder, rating and fields. This lets an agent infer it is a per-release lookup returning owned copies. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_collection or query_collection, so the agent must guess which list tool applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives such as get_collection or query_collection. The only conditional sentence, 'Returns an empty list if it is not owned,' describes outcome rather than selection criteria. The agent gets no explicit signal about which collection tool to pick.

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