collections_list

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 states that the tool returns metadata, which implies a safe read operation, but it does not mention side effects, auth requirements, pagination, or any constraints beyond the site_id parameter. This is adequate but minimal for a simple list operation.

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 one concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a clear statement of return values. There is no waste or redundancy.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (metadata including IDs, names, schemas). It lacks details on pagination or ordering, but these are not critical for a basic list operation. The description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema describes the single parameter 'site_id' with its type and description, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('List'), resource ('CMS collections'), and scope ('in a site'). It also details the return content (IDs, names, schemas), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like collections_get that retrieve a single collection.

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 implies usage—'List all CMS collections in a site'—but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as collections_get. It offers clear context but no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so it only partially fulfills the guidelines dimension.

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