databases_list_collections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering via search and queries, but fails to describe key traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage notes. It efficiently conveys the essential information without 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?

Given the complexity of a listing tool with filtering options, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the return format, pagination, error cases, or how the tool integrates with sibling operations. For a tool with three parameters and behavioral nuances, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by referencing the 'search parameter' and implying filtering, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining how 'queries' interact with 'search'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get a list') and resource ('collections that belong to the provided databaseId'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes this as a listing operation rather than creation or deletion, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like 'databases_list' or 'databases_list_documents' beyond the resource type.

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 context by mentioning the 'search parameter to filter your results,' suggesting it's for retrieving filtered collections. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'databases_get_collection' (for a single collection) or 'databases_list' (for listing databases), and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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