appwrite_list_collections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but omits critical behavioral details: pagination behavior, the effect of 'queries' and 'search' parameters (Appwrite query syntax), and return value structure.

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?

Single sentence is brief, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained jargon that wastes precious space without adding actionable context. The core message is efficiently conveyed but incomplete.

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?

With 4 parameters (including complex filters), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is inadequate. It fails to explain the filtering capabilities implied by the 'queries' and 'search' parameters, leaving the agent unable to construct valid filter arguments.

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%, placing full documentation burden on the description. The description fails to compensate—it explains neither the 'site' parameter (Appwrite instance identifier), the expected format of 'database_id', nor the filtering syntax accepted by 'queries' and 'search'.

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 (List) and resource (collections) with clear scope constraint ('in a database'), distinguishing it from the sibling appwrite_list_databases. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from appwrite_get_collection (single item retrieval vs. listing).

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like appwrite_get_collection, nor does it indicate prerequisites (e.g., that database_id must be obtained first from appwrite_list_databases).

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