get_collections_in_scope

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

The annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, and the description only restates the operation as a read (Get). No additional behavioral traits are disclosed, such as potential errors, permission requirements, or limitations beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Single sentence, clear subject-verb-object, no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 list tool with two self-explanatory parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential function. It could mention that it only returns names (not full collection details) but the title and context imply that. Slight gap in not specifying the output format, but acceptable.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameter semantics. However, it only repeats the parameter names ('given scope and bucket') without adding constraints, formats, or examples. The self-explanatory names partially mitigate this, but the description adds little value.

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 explicitly states 'Get the names of all collections in the given scope and bucket.' This clearly identifies the action (get names) and the resource (collections filtered by scope and bucket), distinguishing it from siblings like get_scopes_and_collections_in_bucket which operates at a different granularity.

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 usage when you need collections within a specific scope and bucket, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_scopes_and_collections_in_bucket, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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