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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('retrieve detailed information about a specific stamp collection by its ID') with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, response format, and usage context. For a retrieval tool with 4 parameters, it provides a minimal viable foundation but doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 4 parameters (collection_id, include_stamps, stamps_page, stamps_limit). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the collection_id is required, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'retrieve' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific stamp collection by its ID', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_collections' by focusing on a single collection rather than searching multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_stamp' or other get_* tools, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_collections' for finding collections or 'get_stamp' for individual stamps. It mentions retrieving by ID but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing the ID first) or exclusions, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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