getCollection

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing the safe-read nature of the call. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by disclosing the default return shape and exactly what model=minimal and model=full change in the response.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a short bulleted list to clarify model options. Every sentence adds useful information without repeating schema details verbatim.

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 single-collection read tool with one required IDainer, a fully described schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the key behavior: default map, minimal model, full model. It is nearly complete, though it could have been even stronger with an explicit pointer to getCollections for list-style retrieval.

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 already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by defining what minimal means in concrete terms ('root-level folder/request IDs only') and by clarifying that omitting model yields the lightweight collection map.

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 starts with 'Get information about a collection,' naming the verb and singular resource scoped by a collectionId. The added default behavior—'lightweight collection map (metadata + recursive itemRefs)'—distinguishes it from collection-listing tools like getCollections and from collection-running tools like runCollection.

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 gives clear guidance on using the model parameter: omit it for the default map, use minimal or full for the Postman response models. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives such as getCollections, getEnvironment, or runCollection, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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