get_collection

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the read-style operation by saying 'get' and gives the vague promise of 'detailed information'; it does not disclose what fields are returned, how errors are reported, or any side effects. This is a thin description for a tool with no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the resource and the level of detail in a compact way.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description alone must tell the agent what 'detailed information' entails, but it does not. Given the large set of sibling collection tools, an agent cannot confidently know whether this returns metadata, contents, ancestors, or some other shape. The tool is simple, but the ambiguity makes it incomplete.

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 covers the single parameter well: collection_id has type, format, pattern, and description. The tool description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond selecting a specific collection, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema already documents everything.

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 identifies a clear verb ('Get'), a resource (collection), and a specific target (a specific collection), so the agent knows this is a detail-fetch tool rather than a list tool. However, 'detailed information' is vague and does not distinguish this from the many collection-related getters (e.g., get_collection_contents, get_collection_metadata) among the siblings.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_collection_contents, get_collection_ancestors, or list_collections. The only usage signal is the natural implication that you need details on a specific collection, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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