hyperspace_list_collections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (JSON array of objects) which the missing output schema would otherwise hide. However, it does not explain what makes a collection 'active' — notably whether frozen collections are excluded, which matters given the freeze/unfreeze siblings — nor any ordering, size limits, or error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return contract. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return fields, but it leaves the semantics of 'active' undefined and says nothing about result size or ordering. For a simple listing tool this is close to sufficient, yet the freeze/unfreeze siblings make the 'active' filter a genuine ambiguity.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading parameter hints are present.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all active collections'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from mutation siblings like hyperspace_create_collection and hyperspace_delete_collection. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the other read-side tools (hyperspace_get_stats, hyperspace_get_points), but the purpose is legible on its own.

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?

Usage is implied by the zero-parameter, read-only nature of the call, but the description never says when to reach for this versus hyperspace_get_stats or hyperspace_get_points, nor any precondition. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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