Get Collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the response includes MANUAL vs AUTOMATED and the rule set, giving useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction, but no details on error handling or pagination (likely not needed).

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every phrase adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read operation with four well-documented parameters and rich annotations, the description is adequate. It mentions the key output aspects (MANUAL/AUTOMATED, rule set) and the identifier options. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't need to explain return values beyond what it already provides.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reiterates that id can be numeric or GID and that handle is an alternative, but this is already stated in the schema descriptions. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 one collection' and specifies the three accepted identifiers (numeric ID, full GID, or handle), distinguishing it from collection_list and collection_update/create. Mentioning that it 'Reports MANUAL vs AUTOMATED and the rule set' adds specificity about the output.

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 makes the use case explicit: retrieve a single collection when you have an identifier. It doesn't name alternatives like collection_list, but the wording 'one collection' implies single-item retrieval, and sibling tool names make the contrast evident. Clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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