List collections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' clearly signals a read-only, non-mutating operation and discloses the salient return content (collections plus per-collection recipe counts), which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination, empty-result behavior, or any auth requirement.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (resource, ownership scope, returned metric) earns its place.

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 trivial, parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description conveys both what is listed and the shape of the result (collections with recipe counts), which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps around ordering and auth requirements keep it from a 5.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the description has nothing to compensate for. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 and resource ('List the user's recipe collections') and adds scope detail (recipe counts per collection). It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish from, but the resource is distinct enough from get_recipe, search_recipes, and whats_next that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for surveying collections, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to search_recipes/get_recipe for drilling into contents. No prerequisites are given.

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