ecp_mongo_list_collections

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation returns metadata only and no document data, which signals a read-only, non-destructive behavior. However, it does not clarify what 'metadata' includes (collection names, options, indexes?) or mention permissions, pagination, or output shape.

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 one short sentence, front-loads the core action, and uses the parenthetical to add an important qualifier. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential purpose and the key limitation (no document data). The main gap is the ambiguity of 'metadata' and the absence of any mention of what exactly is returned, but overall it is adequate for this low-complexity operation.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It mentions 'a database' but does not explicitly explain that db_name is the target database. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List collections in a database'. The parenthetical 'metadata only, no document data' distinguishes it from data-retrieval siblings like browse_documents, making the tool's scope clear without needing to inspect the schema.

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 implies that this tool is not for retrieving document data, but it never names alternatives or states when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like list_databases or browse_documents. No explicit exclusions or routing guidance are provided.

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