mongo_list_collections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the basic function without mentioning connection requirements, error handling, or output format. Given the presence of an output schema, some behavior is inferred, but the description fails to convey important operational context, such as whether a connection is required or how it handles non-existent databases.

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 that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without verbosity.

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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimal but lacks critical details for proper usage. It doesn't specify prerequisites like a valid connection, how to select the right database, or interactions with session management, which are likely relevant given the 'session_name' parameter. More guidance is needed for an agent to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema only provides parameter names and types. The description mentions 'database' implicitly but does not add meaning beyond the schema for the 'database' parameter, and 'session_name' is entirely unexplained. However, with only this minimal description, it does provide some context that the tool operates on a database, which is a slight improvement over bare schema.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('collections in a MongoDB database'), clearly indicating the tool's purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'db_list_tables', which also lists database objects, leaving some potential ambiguity for agents distinguishing between SQL and MongoDB contexts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'db_list_tables' or 'mongo_list_databases'. The context signals show many sibling tools, and without explicit usage instructions, the agent must infer that this tool is for MongoDB collections specifically, which is a clear gap.

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