List 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 reveals that collections are 'curated shelves' and implies that book contents are not included (since it directs to get_collection_books for that). However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as whether the list includes empty collections, ordering, pagination, or any authentication requirements.

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 sentences: the first establishes the primary purpose, and the second gives actionable follow-up guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant language or restating of the tool name.

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 parameterless list tool, the description is largely complete: it states what it lists, clarifies the term 'collections,' and provides chaining to get_collection_books. Given no output schema, it could explicitly mention return fields (e.g., collection name, ID), but the current detail is adequate for correct invocation and basic use.

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 takes zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds context by clarifying that the output consists of collections whose IDs can be used downstream.

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 identifies the tool's action ('List'), the resource ('the user's collections'), and helpful scope ('curated shelves'). It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings by pairing with get_collection_books, indicating that this tool returns collection IDs rather than the books themselves.

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 a clear follow-up action: 'Use a returned collection id with get_collection_books to read the books it contains.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_collection (fetching a single collection) or state when to use this tool versus others. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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