Get a collection

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

The description adds behavioral context about what the tool returns (link count and permissions) beyond what the annotation (readOnlyHint: true) provides. However, it does not describe any side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements. Since the annotation already covers safe read behavior, the description's additional detail is useful but not extensive.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary action and key outputs in the first sentence, then providing the usage alternative in the second. Every sentence is purposeful with zero wasted words.

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 a single parameter with a clear schema, read-only annotations, and a straightforward purpose (fetching a collection), the description covers the essential context well. It explains key outputs (link count, permissions) and directs to the sibling tool for more detail. The only minor gap is not describing the structure of the returned collection object, but for a simple fetch operation this is acceptable.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides (the schema documents the integer type, range, and source). The description mentions 'link count' and 'permissions' but ties these to the function's result, not specifically to the parameter.

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 specific verb 'Fetches' and resource 'one collection' along with specific details like 'link count' and 'per-member create/update/delete permissions.' It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling 'search_links' by specifically pointing out that to get the links inside a collection, one should use 'search_links with collection_id.' This differentiation makes it highly effective for an agent.

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 states when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'Use search_links with collection_id to get the links inside it.' This is excellent guidance. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' scenarios or other exclusions, leaving a small gap from a perfect score.

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