list_photo_collections

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds useful behavioral detail — that results are paged and that substring name matching narrows the list. It does not discuss permissions needed for the shared space or how hidden people/concepts affect counts, but with annotations present the bar is lower and this is solid supplementary context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the enumeration of types, then the use case, then the paging/filter note. Nothing is redundant or padded, and the reader gets the highest-value information first.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses what comes back — ids and item counts — and covers paging and filtering, which is what an agent needs to call it. The only gap is that the personal-vs-shared space semantics that affect ID validity are left entirely to the schema, so it falls just short of fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters, including the enum-like `type` values and `space`, are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the name-substring behavior and paging, adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Synology Photos collection') and enumerates the exact collection types it can return, including 'albums shared with you' as its own type. It also distinguishes itself from list_photos and the filesystem tools by framing the output as ids and item counts. An agent can identify this tool's domain without consulting the schema.

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?

It gives a concrete use case and routes the agent to the pairing sibling: 'Use it to find the ids and names that list_photos filters by.' That is clear usage context, but it stops short of exclusions — e.g., it never says to use list_photos or search_files instead when you merely want photo metadata rather than a collection listing.

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