list_collections

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds value by disclosing the specific output fields (child counts, object counts, visibility). It does not describe ordering or pagination, but the output schema likely covers return structure, and for a zero-parameter read-only tool this 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 a single, focused sentence that states the action, target, and key return data without any redundant words or filler. Every word 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?

For a zero-parameter list operation with a readOnlyHint and an output schema, the description provides all essential information: listing all collections and the specific data returned. There is no additional complexity that would require more explanation.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. The schema coverage is 100% with an empty properties object, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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') and resource ('collections'), and explicitly enumerates the returned attributes (child counts, object counts, visibility). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_objects or list_materials by focusing on collections and their metadata.

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 phrase 'List all collections' clearly indicates when to use this tool—whenever a full inventory of collections with counts and visibility is needed. Although no explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria are stated, the context is unambiguous and no conflicting tool exists among siblings.

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