collect

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states the return contract: 'Returns a handle and the frame's shape — never the frame,' and notes that family supplies its own collect options. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, handle lifecycle, or whether repeated calls create persistent resources, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 three short paragraphs, each earning its place: definition, return behavior plus alternatives, and per-kind parameter rules. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundant or filler language.

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?

The description gives key return/routing guidance and covers the main usage patterns for each kind. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema parameter descriptions, omitting cells, group_it, max_cycle, and the exact handle/shape format leaves notable gaps for full autonomous invocation.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description compensates meaningfully for kind, columns, family, and cycles, including the summary-vs-cycles rule. But cells, group_it, and max_cycle are mentioned nowhere, leaving three of seven parameters semantically undocumented.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Build a collection' with kind variants summary, cycles, ica, dva. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that it returns a handle and shape, never the frame, and by naming preview_collection and export_collection as the tools for rows and numbers.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool: when you need a collection handle, not rows (preview_collection) or numbers (export_collection). It also gives per-kind parameter guidance, telling the agent to use columns/family for summary and cycles for cycles/ica/dva, so the decision is unambiguous.

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