list_collections

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds concrete behavioral context: it lists all collections in the library and specifies the exact fields returned. This informs the agent about the operation's scope and output shape without contradicting the annotations. It doesn't discuss pagination or edge cases, but for a simple list operation the added detail is sufficient.

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 two short sentences, immediately stating the action and scope, then reinforcing the read-only nature. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema is provided, the description covers all essential context: the operation (list), the target resource (collections), the scope (all in the library), and the fields returned. The read-only annotation and description align, and there is no missing information that would prevent an agent from invoking it correctly.

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, and the schema is empty, so no parameter documentation is needed. The 0-parameter baseline is 4, and the description correctly implies that no arguments are required to list all collections.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'collections', states its scope ('all collections in the library'), and enumerates the returned fields ('key, name, parent_collection'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tags or list_groups, which target other resource types.

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 establishes that this tool is for retrieving the full set of collections and that it is read-only, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or cases where another tool (e.g., search_items for filtered queries) might be more appropriate, so it stops short of a full 5.

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