get-collections-by-collection-id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), which is clear, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the collection ID is invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output format, which are important for a tool with no structured metadata. This leaves gaps in completeness for effective agent use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'collectionId' documented as 'The collection ID to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'details of a collection', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-collections' (which likely lists multiple collections) or specify what details are included, leaving some ambiguity compared to alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get-collections' (for listing collections) or other get-* tools. The description implies usage when you have a specific collection ID, but it doesn't explicitly state this or mention prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context.

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