ti_list_collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating the returned fields (collection, label, route, huntingRulesUsed) and decoding the NO_ROUTE sentinel as 'no data', plus framing the call as a credential/IP-allow-list self-test — real behavioral context.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose plus endpoint, then the return payload, then the recommended first-use pattern. It is front-loaded and every clause carries information, though the 'guide's own configuration self-test' phrasing is slightly more narrative than necessary.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response, and it does so by naming each returned field and explaining the one ambiguous value. Auth/allow-list prerequisites are also disclosed, which is exactly what an agent needs before a first call.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description rightly spends its words on output shape instead of inventing parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List the collections this account may read') and even pins the underlying endpoint (GET /api/v2/user/granted_collections), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling ti_describe_collections, which is the main gap.

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?

It gives clear positive guidance — 'call it first to confirm credentials, IP allow-listing and access all work' — which is a concrete recommendation on when to invoke it. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming alternatives for collection inspection, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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