Get org collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the word 'all' to signal unfiltered listing; it says nothing about pagination, result size, or permission scope for org data.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than economy – the one sentence could easily have carried the missing usage and parameter context.

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 0% schema coverage, four undocumented parameters (including three opaque wrapper fields), no output schema, and multiple look-alike siblings, the definition leaves an agent without enough information to call it confidently or to pick it over alternatives.

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 nothing in the schema explains the four parameters, three of which are opaque generic wrappers ('form', 'params', 'json_body'). The description only implies org_id via 'in an org' and offers no format or semantics for it or the others.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all collections in an org') that an agent can match to a request. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as vaultwarden_get_org_collections_details, vaultwarden_get_org_collection_detail, or vaultwarden_get_collection_users, which an agent must resolve by name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the near-identical sibling tools that also return org collection data. The agent must infer selection criteria from tool names.

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