list_collections

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

The annotations already mark the tool readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Daftar' (list) is consistent with that read-only behavior, so there is no contradiction. Beyond that, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as output format, ordering, or effect of omitting database, but this is not a high-risk 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated annotation content. Every word contributes to identifying the action and scope.

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 read-only listing operation with one optional parameter fully described in the schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit statement of the return shape, but the resource and scope are clear.

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%: the only parameter, database, is documented as the target database name and optional if MONGODB_DB is set. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the schema already carries the necessary semantic load, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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, 'Daftar semua koleksi di dalam sebuah database,' clearly states the operation (list) and the resource (all collections in a database), so an agent can tell this from tools like list_databases. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, and it relies on the tool name and object wording for differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over siblings such as list_databases, collection_stats, or db_stats, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The only contextual hint is in the parameter schema about the optional database name, which is not tool-selection guidance.

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