list_my_collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation returning a dynamic set. The description adds value by explicitly stating the return shape ({ count, collections[] } with fields id, name, description, visibility) and the authentication requirement (SANSFICTION_TOKEN). There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose, then immediately gives return shape and usage guidance, and ends with authentication context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the low complexity (2 optional params, no nested objects, no output schema, no enums), the description completely covers purpose, return format, usage context, alternatives, and authentication. There are no missing pieces for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 100%, so with baseline 3, the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for either parameter, which is appropriate given the schema already documents them with clear descriptions.

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 'the user's own collections', with an explicit distinction from a sibling tool 'list_public_collections'. This leaves no doubt about what the tool does and how it differs from an alternative tool.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use ('signed-in user's OWN collections') and when not to use ('For editorially curated public collections available to everyone, use list_public_collections instead'), naming the exact alternative tool. It also includes authentication requirements, giving a complete usage context.

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