Discogs: list collection folders

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true; description adds that it requires authentication and shows example folder names. However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or error behavior. With annotations covering read-only safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One sentence, 13 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and the examples are helpful without bloat.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter list tool, this description is sufficient: it states what it returns (folders) with examples. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the exact structure of the response (e.g., folder IDs), which would help an AI agent use the result in downstream calls.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds context that the operation targets the authenticated user's folders, which clarifies the implicit scope without needing parameter 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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'collection folders' for authenticated user, with examples ('All', 'Uncategorized', custom folders). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like discogs_get_collection_items, which lists items within a folder.

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?

Clear context (authenticated user's collection folders) implies when to use, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. Could be improved by noting that discogs_get_collection_items is for items inside a folder, but the purpose is straightforward enough.

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