Get Org Collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context that the optional organizationId parameter narrows the scope, which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like what happens if the id is not found or if there are access restrictions.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get an organization collection by id'). It includes a parenthetical command-line reference and the optional parameter behavior, all without unnecessary words. Every part adds value and the length is appropriate.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and the role of each parameter for a simple read operation. While there is no output schema, the tool name and action imply the return of a collection object. It does not explicitly state the return type or error conditions, but given the low complexity and presence of annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description rephrases the schema's explanation for organizationId ('narrows the org-scoped lookup') but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The id parameter is simply referred to as 'by id' without additional detail.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'organization collection' with the specific identifier 'by id'. It also includes a command-line equivalent for clarity. The tool name itself distinguishes it from siblings like 'keychain_get_collection' (for regular collections) and 'keychain_list_org_collections' (for listing).

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 mentions that organizationId is optional and narrows the lookup, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'keychain_list_org_collections' for listing all org collections. Usage guidance is implied but not explicit about exclusions or when-not-to-use.

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