get_art_collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses that this is a 'system-level operation,' hinting at restricted access or internal scope. However, it does not mention any mutation risks, rate limits, or potential error behavior (e.g., what happens if the collection ID does not exist). It adds some value over nothing but falls short of fully informing the agent.

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 very brief, using only 8 words, which is concise but slightly under-specified. The key actions are front-loaded. Every word is earned, but the brevity limits completeness. A touch more detail on the system-level nature would improve without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (1 required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential purpose. However, without annotations like readOnlyHint or any elaboration on return values or error cases, the agent might be uncertain about the tool's safety or scope. Completeness is adequate for a straightforward get operation but not robust.

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% (the single 'collection_id' parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—only clarifying that the ID is for an art collection. No additional semantics, formats, or examples are provided, meeting but not exceeding the baseline.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('art collection details by ID') and adds a system-level context. It distinguishes itself from 'list_art_collections' (listing vs. single retrieval) and 'get_art' (collection vs. individual art). However, it lacks differentiation from general get tools like 'get_user' or 'get_external_worker', missing a score of 5.

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 gives minimal usage guidance beyond stating it is a 'system-level operation', which implies internal use. There is no mention of when to use this versus 'list_art_collections' or any alternatives, nor are there prerequisites or conditions explained. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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