get_collections_by_id

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the HTTP verb and path; there is no mention of return behavior, error cases, authorization, rate limits, or any side effects. The description does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not meaningfully extend them.

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 and well-structured: a one-line summary, the endpoint, and an Args section. No unnecessary explanation is included. It loses a point because 'Get api collections' is slightly vague compared to something like 'Get a single collection by its ID', and the endpoint duplicates the Args line.

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 simple single-parameter read operation, this is minimally viable: an agent knows the HTTP method, path, and required id. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it does not clarify whether the id is the collection's UUID, how errors are represented, or when a caller should choose this over list_collections. The lack of these details leaves a small but meaningful gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only restates that id is a path parameteraging, which is already visible in the endpoint and schema. It does not explain what the id represents (e.g., collection UUID), expected format, or any constraints beyond being a required string.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get api collections' with the endpoint GET /api/collections/{id}. The id path parameter makes it evident that this returns a single collection by identifier, which distinguishes it from list_collections. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like list_collections or get_libraries_by_id_collections, so it misses the top differentiation credit.

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 no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this fetches one specific collection or that list_collections should be used for retrieving all collections. The endpoint and required id imply the use case, but no direct context or exclusions are provided.

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