list_collections

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

With no annotations, the description does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation. It fails to disclose what 'objects' includes (e.g., mesh names or object counts) or how the tree structure is represented. No side effects or limitations are mentioned.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description only partially compensates. It explains the output is a tree of collections with objects, but lacks specifics on the structure, object types, or whether empty collections are included. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. With no params, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not introduce ambiguity.

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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'collections', and distinguishes it from siblings like create_collection by using 'list'. It specifies 'all collections in the scene' and 'as a tree with their objects', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidelines are provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_materials or get_hierarchy. The description only implies its use for listing collections, but does not exclude scenarios or mention siblings.

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