list_collections

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds value beyond those hints by disclosing the output payload (ids, names, slugs, and timestamps) and the purpose of that output (selecting a collection_id for downstream calls). No contradiction with annotations.

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 with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and optional filters; the second states the return fields and downstream use case. Every clause earns its place, and there's no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it lists, the filter options, what it returns, and how to use the result. It could go one step further by clarifying how workspace scoping works (e.g., what happens when workspace_id is omitted), but pagination and field details are already handled by the schema and output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3 — the schema already documents search, page_size, current_page, and workspace_id with meaningful descriptions. The description adds marginal value by mapping 'filtering by name or workspace' to the intent of the search and workspace_id parameters, but it adds no new format, syntax, or behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair — 'List prompt collections in the workspace' — and further narrows scope with 'optionally filtering by name or workspace.' Against siblings like create_collection, get_collection, and list_workspaces, the distinction is unambiguous, and the stated return fields (ids, names, slugs, timestamps) leave no doubt about what this tool produces.

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 provides explicit downstream context: 'so you can choose a collection_id before create_prompt, get_collection, or list_prompts.' This tells the agent the typical sequencing for using the tool. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming an alternative for the case where a collection_id is already known (e.g., get_collection), so it's clear context without explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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