List collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Renders no UI', a genuine behavioral trait not expressed in the annotations, though it says nothing about pagination, permissions, or result limits.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first defines scope and return shape, the second gives usage triggers. The scope statement is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema present, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing. The description covers purpose, when to reach for it, and the no-UI behavior, and it need not explain return values since the output schema exists.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about inputs and instead describes outputs, which is appropriate here.

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 and resource ('List every data collection') and even enumerates the returned fields (name, item count, last activity), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It never names or contrasts a sibling such as data_list or list_apps, so differentiation is left to inference from the domain rather than stated.

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 sentence 'Use when unsure where data lives, what boards the user has, or which collection to bind an app to' gives concrete triggering situations, which is stronger than implied usage. However it lists no alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer when a different listing tool is preferable.

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