get_collection_size

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only aggregate retrieval, but it does not specify units, whether the size is recursive across subcollections, or whether it includes only directly contained files. This is acceptable for a simple getter but not fully transparent.

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 one clear sentence with no filler or repetition. The core operation and target object are front-loaded in the same phrase.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description conveys the essential purpose, but it omits the output form and units, and with no output schema the agent must infer that a numeric size is returned. It is adequate but has clear gaps around return value and edge cases.

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 fully documents collection_id as a UUID, and the description does not need to add parameter syntax. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it returns the total size of files within a collection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_collection_contents or get_asset_file, which list or retrieve individual entries rather than an aggregate.

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 wording implies the tool is for obtaining an aggregate file-size figure for a collection, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of other tools or exclusions.

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