swisstopo_get_collection

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety aspects. The description adds that the tool retrieves detail info and download links, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as potential data size or performance implications. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences and a use-case tag. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. No unnecessary information is present.

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 has one parameter, annotations, and an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and basic input. It does not mention potential errors or edge cases, but for a simple retrieval tool, this is sufficient.

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 input schema provides a minimal description with an example for 'collection_id', but context signals indicate 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter's meaning, format, or constraints beyond what the schema offers. For a single-parameter tool, the description should compensate, but it adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 the tool retrieves detailed information and download links of a STAC collection. It specifies the resource (STAC collection) and the action (abrufen). The use-case tag distinguishes it from siblings by indicating it's the second step after a search, making its purpose specific and differentiated.

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 explicitly provides a usage scenario via the use-case tag, stating it is the second step after 'swisstopo_search_geodata' to obtain assets/Download URLs. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and references the alternative tool, fulfilling the guidelines dimension well.

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