list_collections

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 effectively describes the tool as a read-only retrieval operation ('Retrieves and displays'), specifies the scope ('all available collections in the workspace'), and outlines the return format ('Formatted string containing collection names, IDs, and descriptions'). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination or rate limits.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet points for usage guidelines and a clear returns section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or performance, which could be relevant for an 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it could note that no inputs are required. Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description adequately covers the tool's purpose without parameter details.

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 ('Retrieves and displays') and resource ('all available collections in the workspace'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_collection_structure' (which focuses on internal structure) and 'export_collection' (which exports data).

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 explicitly lists four use cases (e.g., 'See what collections exist', 'Get collection IDs for other operations'), providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like 'search_documents' (for finding specific content) and 'list_archived_documents' (for archived items).

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