get_collections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default behavior (trashed collections excluded by default) and describes the return fields (keys, names, parent relationships). It implies a read-only operation via 'List'. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, pagination, or whether the list is flat or nested, which are useful but not critical for this simple tool.

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 adding unique value: the main listing action, the return fields, and the follow-up usage guidance plus default behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what it lists, what it returns, and the trashed exclusion default. It lacks a precise output schema, but the return fields are described. A 4 is appropriate because there is no mention of sorting or a maximum result set, but overall the agent has enough to invoke 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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter include_trashed, with the schema already providing a clear description and default. The tool description adds a note about the default exclusion of trashed collections, but this is redundant with the schema. Thus description adds minimal value beyond the schema, consistent with the baseline 3.

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 starts with 'List all collections (folders) in your Zotero library', which clearly states the verb (list) and resource (collections/folders). It distinguishes from siblings like get_collection_items and create_collection by specifying the return content (keys, names, parent relationships) and mentions how collection keys are used downstream.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to list all collections. It also provides concrete follow-up actions ('Use collection keys with get_collection_items or as parent_collection in create_collection'), which helps the agent understand the typical workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative listing/search tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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