collections_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action and scope, without disclosing pagination behavior (how 'all' is retrieved), any rate limits, or what the response contains. The schema hints at pagination via parameters, but the description does not explain the relationship.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no unnecessary filler or repetition of schema details.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the list returns and how pagination works. It only provides a terse statement without covering these aspects, making it incomplete for a tool with pagination parameters and no schema.

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 100%, with limit, offset, and nextPath all documented. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies. It does not clarify how these parameters relate to 'all accessible collections', but the schema descriptions handle parameter basics.

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 'List all accessible collections' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (collections), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like collections_info or collections_documents. It defines the scope as 'accessible', which clarifies what will be returned.

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 usage when you need to retrieve the set of collections the user can access, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. However, given the many list-type sibling tools, the intended pattern is reasonably clear.

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