collection_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the tool returns basic size info for each collection, but it does not add deeper behavioral context such as pagination or potentially large responses. With annotations covering the core behavior, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The main action is up front, the scope is explicit, and the usage guidance is integrated without bloating the description.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing operation with an output schema present, the description fully covers what the agent needs to decide when to call this tool. Nothing important is missing.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and the schema covers everything trivially, so the description has little to add. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description's mention of 'which collection' selection is sensible even though no parameters are needed here.

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 and resource ('Lists every Qdrant collection') and adds scope ('managed by this server') plus a hint of return content ('basic size info'). It effectively distinguishes itself from collection_info (single collection) and collection_create by focusing on enumeration of all collections.

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 provides clear usage context: use it to see existing RAG collections before creating a new one or choosing which to search. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the use-case guidance is strong enough to guide an agent.

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