Get Collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that 'a foreign or wrong-typed Container is returned as not found', disclosing an important edge case and access-control constraint. This is valuable supplementary information.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the main action and then adds a concise edge-case clarification. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description provides sufficient context: it states what the tool does, the owning constraint, and the not-found behavior for foreign/wrong-typed containers. It does not mention the return format, but for a simple get operation this is not a significant omission.

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 0%, so the description is the primary source for parameter meaning. Although it does not explicitly state 'collection_id is the UUID of the collection to retrieve', the tool name and singular parameter make it clear. The 'owned' and 'wrong-typed' constraints add semantic context about acceptable IDs, providing some compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get one owned Collection'. The edge case 'a foreign or wrong-typed Container is returned as not found' distinguishes this from sibling getters like get_container and get_project, clarifying that it only retrieves owned collections. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose.

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 implies usage context: it is for retrieving a single owned collection by ID, and explicitly warns that foreign or wrong-typed containers will result in a not-found response, indicating when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like get_container for those other types, so it lacks a direct exclusion statement.

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