list_collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description complements this by noting collections are 'catalog-only organizational nodes (never written to media),' which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not detail aspects like pagination or error handling, but this is a simple listing tool with one parameter.

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 compact—3 sentences total—each adding essential information: the location in the hierarchy, the nature of collections (catalog-only), and the return content. No wasted words, and the critical usage guidance is front-loaded.

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 one required parameter, a schema with 100% coverage, and no output schema needed (return fields are summarized in the description), this is complete. The description covers purpose, structure, content, and next steps, making it fully adequate for agent use.

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 description adds value by explaining the role of project_id in the context of the hierarchy. It does not repeat the existing schema description verbatim but reinforces it with business logic context.

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 clearly that the tool lists collections inside one project, distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects and list_archives by explaining the hierarchical model (Project > Collection > Archive), and specifies what each entry contains (id, name, parent_collection_id, count of archives).

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (when exploring the middle tier of the hierarchy) and guides the next step: 'Pass a Collection's id to list_archives (collection_id) to see its contents.' This differentiates it from sibling tools and provides a clear workflow.

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