get_collection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but nothing else is disclosed—no error behavior, auth requirements, or response details. This is adequate for a simple getter but adds no depth beyond the obvious.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and scope efficiently without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally viable: the agent knows what to call and how to identify the collection. But it omits any mention of when to prefer this over get_collections, what the response looks like, or failure behavior, so meaningful gaps remain.

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% (the 'id' parameter is already described as 'Collection ID'). The description adds no extra meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'collection', with 'specific' and 'by ID' distinguishing it from the sibling get_collections (plural listing). It is direct and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Usage is implied by the wording 'specific ... by ID': an agent can infer this is for fetching exactly one collection when an ID is known. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_collections or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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