List Collections

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: it is a registry listing, not a filesystem scan; unregistered disk collections won't appear; and non-existent registered entries return 'exists': false. This goes beyond the schema and provides crucial context for correct interpretation.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the core function, explaining the registry behavior, and giving usage guidance. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of redundant information.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the key outputs (names, paths, exists) and how to use them with other tools. Given the simple nature of the tool (one optional parameter) and the rich behavioral detail provided, the description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has one parameter (workspacePath) with complete description coverage (100%), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description does not mention workspacePath, but the schema already documents it adequately, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool lists Bruno collections registered in workspace.yml with their names and paths. It distinguishes itself from a filesystem scan and explicitly contrasts with other tools that use the path, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: if you already know the absolute path, pass it directly to other tools instead of using this. It also instructs to use the returned path as collectionPath in get_collection_stats, list_requests, and run_collection, clarifying when this tool is appropriate.

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