get_collection_full_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation itself; it does not say whether the returned path is root-to-leaf or leaf-to-root, whether the collection itself or the root is included, how the sentinel UUIDs (zero and all-F patterns in the schema) are treated, or what happens for a nonexistent collection. 'Get' implies read-only, but that is name-level inference, not disclosure.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with verb and resource, with the parenthetical rapidly clarifying the meaning of 'full path'. No wasted words; it is terse to the point of under-serving other dimensions, but for conciseness alone it is efficient.

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 should cover the return-value contract and edge-case behavior, and it covers neither. '(breadcrumb)' hints at an ordered ancestor list, but an agent has no way to know the response shape (names, IDs, or full objects), whether the path includes the collection itself or the root, or how the special sentinel UUIDs behave. For a one-parameter tool this is close, but it falls short of what a calling agent needs.

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: collection_id is already documented as 'The collection UUID' with format and pattern constraints. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema's complete coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('collection'), and scope ('full path'), with the parenthetical '(breadcrumb)' clarifying the hierarchy concept. It is clear in isolation but does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling get_collection_ancestors, which covers overlapping conceptual territory.

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 its siblings. No exclusions, no alternatives named, and no context — an agent cannot tell from the description whether to choose this over get_collection_ancestors or get_collection_contents.

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