list_supported_collections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the return format as a JSON string and enumerates the content, which gives an agent a concrete expectation. It does not mention side effects, but 'List' inherently implies a read-only operation, making this reasonably transparent.

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 extremely concise: one purpose line and one return line. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses no filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is complete: it states what is listed, the return type, and the scope ('available in eo-mcp'). An output schema exists, so the agent can rely on it for exact structure. No critical operational detail is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and no parameter description is needed. The description adds no parameter details because there is nothing to add; baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists supported open satellite collections, spatial resolutions, spectral bands, and STAC sources. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like stac_search or discover_eo_tools, so it misses the sibling-differentiation aspect of a 5.

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 intended use is implied by the description—call it when you need to know which collections are supported—but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided, leaving usage context to inference.

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