get_collection

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. "Get" implies a read, but the description says nothing about read-only guarantees, what happens when the name/ID does not exist, or any permission requirements for private 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 sentence with the resource and its lookups front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavior and selection guidance noted above.

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?

An output schema exists and there is only one well-documented parameter, so return values and inputs are covered elsewhere. However, with zero annotations the description should still establish that this is a safe read and what a missing collection looks like; that gap keeps it at minimum-viable.

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%, and the schema already says the parameter accepts "The collection ID or name." The description's "by name or ID" repeats that rather than adding format, precedence, or edge-case meaning such as what happens if a name collides with an ID.

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?

States a specific verb ("Get") and a specific resource ("collection schema"), keyed by name or ID. It is distinguishable from list_collections and get_record, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the other read tools like list_collections or get_auth_store.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the single-collection lookup versus list_collections for enumeration, entirely from the tool's name and the sibling list.

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