Get asset collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that the read is scoped to the authenticated user's own library, which is mild but real context; it says nothing about what happens for missing/inaccessible collections.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than maximal information density.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally convey what a returned collection contains (assets, metadata, hierarchy), but it does not. Annotations and the schema cover safety and inputs adequately, so the tool is callable, but return expectations remain unstated.

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 both collection_id and account are documented in the schema (including the account label caveat). The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage or format, so the baseline 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 states a verb ('Get') and resource ('asset collection') and adds the scope 'for the authenticated user's fal Assets library.' However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name/title and gives no signal distinguishing it from siblings like list_asset_collections, get_asset_collection_hierarchy, or list_asset_collection_assets.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_asset_collections (all collections) or get_asset_collection_hierarchy (nested structure). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives are named.

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