Zotero Search Collections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it is exceptionally transparent. It discloses case-insensitive substring matching, AND semantics across words, whitespace handling, trash behavior, return of parent keys, and even performance characteristics (O(n) scan, pagination). This goes well beyond what a schema or annotation would reveal.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: matching rules, AND vs OR behavior, whitespace handling, return format, trash parameter, performance note, and an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and progressively adds detail in a logical order.

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?

Given the two simple parameters and an output schema, the description leaves no important gap. It covers matching semantics, return fields, parameter behavior, performance expectations, and gives a practical example. The presence of an output schema means it does not need to detail return structure 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate entirely for parameter meaning. It fully explains query semantics including multi-word AND behavior and whitespace trimming, and it explains include_trashed's default, effect, and annotation of trashed results. Both parameters are completely clarified.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search collections by name in the active library and return their 8-character keys.' It clearly distinguishes this from item/tag searches by stating the match applies only to the collection's own name, not parent names, descriptions, or items. The example further anchors the purpose.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when searching collection names in the active library, and it explicitly sets boundaries (only own name, not items/parents/descriptions). It also provides actionable guidance for multi-word queries ('To match either word, issue two separate searches'). However, it does not name sibling alternatives such as zotero_get_collections or zotero_search_items as explicit 'use this instead' routing.

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