getCollection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context: it explains the default behavior (lightweight collection map), the optional model parameter for different response shapes, and mentions that using access_key doesn't require an API key (implied from schema). It doesn't disclose rate limits or error behaviors, but with annotations, this is sufficient for a high score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific usage details. It uses two concise sentences with no wasted words, efficiently covering default behavior and parameter options. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, read-only), annotations cover safety, and schema coverage is 100%, the description is mostly complete. It explains response variations via the model parameter, though no output schema exists to detail return values. It could mention error cases or prerequisites, but for a read tool with good annotations, this is adequate.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds some semantics by explaining the purpose of the model parameter ('opt in to Postman's full API responses') and implying collectionId is for a specific collection, but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 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 resource 'collection', specifying it returns 'information about a collection' with details about the default lightweight collection map. It distinguishes from siblings like 'getCollections' (plural) by focusing on a single collection, and from 'createCollection' or 'duplicateCollection' by being a read operation.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'By default this tool returns the lightweight collection map' and 'Use the model parameter to opt in to Postman's full API responses', with specific alternatives ('minimal' vs 'full'). It clarifies when to use different modes based on the desired response detail, though it doesn't mention when not to use it versus other sibling tools.

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