bgg_user_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds only the status scoping, and says nothing about how large a collection can be, whether results are paginated or truncated, or whether a private profile causes errors — relevant gaps for an openWorld remote fetch.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the filter scope in a trailing clause. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

With only two parameters and a rich annotation set, the description is sufficient to call the tool correctly, but there is no output schema and no hint about result volume, pagination, or error behavior for private/unknown users. For a remote collection fetch that can return hundreds of items, that omission leaves a real gap.

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% and the enum values are documented in the schema, including the 'owned' default. The description merely repeats the enum members verbatim, adding no new meaning such as whether status is required or how multiple statuses behave — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a BGG user's game collection') plus the status dimension it filters on, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It also implicitly separates itself from BGG siblings like bgg_search and bgg_game_details, though it never names them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for a specific user's collection rather than catalogue search, but the description never says when to prefer this over bgg_search or bgg_game_details. No prerequisites (e.g., username validity, BGG account existence) or exclusions are stated.

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