bgg_user_collection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states the basic function but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or whether it returns all games or just a subset. The minimal information leaves significant gaps for 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 a single concise sentence with 14 words, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word is informative and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 (2 parameters, one required) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details about the return format or what data the collection contains, but it does cover the essential input semantics. A more complete description would mention the response structure (e.g., list of games with details).

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds only minor contextual value by mentioning the three status options, which are already enumerated in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly augment the meaning.

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 'Get a BGG user's game collection filtered by status', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like bgg_search (search games) or bgg_game_details (details of a specific game).

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 the tool is for retrieving a user's game collection, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No comparison with other BGG tools is given.

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