List collections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context: collections are 'persistent' and 'local,' and the result includes 'memberships.' The verb 'List' semantically indicates a safe, read-only operation, so no destructive-behavior warning is needed.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word adds meaning: 'persistent,' 'local,' 'paper collections,' and 'memberships.'

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what is listed, the scope of the data, and what the results will contain. No prerequisites, filters, or side effects are relevant.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Schema coverage is effectively complete, and no parameter guidance is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('persistent local paper collections') plus what is included ('their memberships'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_collection, delete_collection, and add_paper_to_collection without ambiguity.

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 it should be used when the agent needs to see existing collections, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The intended use is reasonably inferable from the verb, but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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