list_collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful scope hint that collections span user-owned and team-shared picks, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or whether shared collections are included for every caller.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the appositive definition placed after the core claim. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a zero-param list tool this is nearly sufficient; only the scope of "the user's" collections versus team-shared ones would sharpen it further.

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; baseline 4 applies. It correctly spends no words on argument semantics.

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?

Uses a specific verb + resource ("List the user's image collections") and adds a gloss ("the lightboxes a team uses to share picks") that tells an agent what a collection actually is. The singular sibling get_collection is implicitly distinguished by "list" vs retrieval, but the description never names it.

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 enumerating verb plus the "team shares picks" framing implies the natural use case (discovering collections before fetching assets or adding to one), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among get_collection, create_collection, or add_to_collection.

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