kyliecosmetics_collections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that collections are normalized, the storefront URL is fixed server-side, and valid empty pages return 200 with an empty array. However, it does not mention rate limits, freshness, or response shape beyond 'collections,' leaving some 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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and each additional sentence adds distinct value: source URL, server-side fixed URL, and empty-page behavior. Nothing is redundant.

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 simple list endpoint with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key edge case (empty pages) and source context. It could be more complete by describing what fields a normalized collection contains, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can invoke it correctly with the given information.

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 schema already fully documents page and limit. The description adds minimal semantic value for parameters, only indirectly implying that pagination exists via the empty-page note. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List Kylie Cosmetics collections,' a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's action. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like kyliecosmetics_collection_products or kyliecosmetics_products, but the brand and resource scope are unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kyliecosmetics_products or kyliecosmetics_collection_products. The usage context is only implied by the name and first sentence, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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