Get Crowdsourcing Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating it's for a collection, which is already in the schema. Without annotations, this would score lower, but given annotations, it's adequate.

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?

One sentence, 5 words - very concise. However, it could be slightly more informative while remaining succinct, such as mentioning it returns detailed info about a specific collection.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not mention what 'details' are returned (e.g., status, settings, contributions). For a simple get tool, more context about the return value is needed to complete the picture.

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 coverage is 100% with clear 'Collection ID' description. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so baseline 3 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 states 'Get crowdsourcing details for a collection' - a clear verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like transkribus_crowdsource_list or transkribus_crowd_get_project, leaving ambiguity about what specific details are retrieved.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool suggestions are provided. The description gives no context about appropriate usage compared to sibling crowdsourcing tools.

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