get_collector

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's read-only framing is consistent and the safety profile is clear without repetition. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what happens for an invalid collector_id or what level of detail is included, but for a simple getter with strong annotations this is adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It states the action and target resource efficiently, and every word contributes to the meaning, even though 'detailed information' could be more specific.

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?

This is a low-complexity, one-parameter read-only getter with rich annotations and no output schema. The description plus the schema provide enough information for an agent to select the tool and invoke it correctly. It would benefit from clarifying what 'detailed information' includes and how it differs from get_collector_health, but it is complete enough for a straightforward fetch-by-ID operation.

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%: collector_id is a required integer described as 'Collector ID'. The tool description adds no extra semantic information about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies since the schema already carries the documentation burden.

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 uses a clear verb (Get) and resource (a specific collector), and the required collector_id parameter reinforces that this targets one collector rather than the list-style get_collectors sibling. However, 'detailed information' is somewhat vague about what exactly is returned, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related getters like get_collector_health.

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 phrase 'a specific collector' implies this tool should be used when the agent has a collector_id and needs details about that single entity, contrasting implicitly with get_collectors. No explicit guidance is given about when to prefer alternatives such as get_collector_health, get_collector_groups, or update_collector, so usage context is only implied.

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