get_collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it states 'without changing anything' and discloses the error condition when the collection manager is unavailable.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope and the safety guarantee, then the field list. The parenthetical about share_type consumers is slightly dense but earns its place by enabling chaining.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description fully compensates by spelling out the return structure (collections array with name/share_type, plus collection_count) and the failure mode. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there are no semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description appropriately spends its words on output shape instead.

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 (List) and resource (Content Browser collections) plus explicit scope ('every project container, of every share type'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_collection_assets, create_collection, and delete_collection.

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?

Explains the downstream utility of share_type ('the share_type that get_collection_assets and the other collection tools need'), effectively routing the agent to chain this call first. No explicit when-not-to-use clause, but the context is clear.

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