GetCollections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination, which adds some context beyond basic retrieval, but fails to address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by additional capabilities in a single sentence. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or usage examples. Overall, it's efficient but not optimally organized for clarity.

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 high complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, authentication needs, or detailed parameter usage. For a list-retrieval tool with extensive filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use by an AI agent.

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 none of the 11 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only vaguely references filtering by 'fields such as `handle`' and mentions sorting and pagination, but doesn't explain the purpose, format, or constraints of specific parameters like 'fields', 'order', 'q', '$and', '$or', or date objects. It adds minimal semantic value, insufficient to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 verb 'retrieve' and resource 'list of collections', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like GetCollectionsId (which likely retrieves a single collection) or other list-retrieval tools like GetProducts, leaving room for improvement in sibling differentiation.

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 mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination capabilities, which implies usage scenarios, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetCollectionsId for single collections or other list tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context with siblings.

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