list_collections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It implies a safe read-only operation ('List all collections') and adds the fuzzy matching behavior for the optional search parameter. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but that is acceptable for a simple listing tool.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the primary purpose and then provide usage context and filtering behavior. Every phrase earns its place with no irrelevant information.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, when to use it, and how filtering works. It implies the return includes collection IDs, which is sufficient for the stated use case.

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%, and the schema already describes the 'search' parameter with examples. The tool description adds little beyond a restatement of the fuzzy matching detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 tool lists all collections (folders) in the organization, using the specific verb 'List' and a concrete resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like create_collection and list_prototypes by noting its role in finding collection_id for prototype registration.

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 provides explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to find the collection_id when registering prototypes.' It lacks explicit exclusions or mention of alternatives, but this clear use case is enough to guide an agent.

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