List Bruno collections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' does imply a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is useful, but the description says nothing about recursion depth, result size, or behavior when the root is missing or invalid, and the root-resolution note duplicates the schema.

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 short sentences with the capability front-loaded and the usage trigger second; there is no filler. The second sentence is slightly elliptical ('instead of a full path' relative to what?), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the agent gets no sense of the return shape (collection objects, paths, counts) or failure modes. For a zero-required-parameter list tool this is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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% with examples for both optional parameters, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'below a root directory or configured roots' loosely mirrors the root parameter and 'partial collection name' gestures at query, but adds no syntax or matching rules beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Bruno collections') plus scope ('below a root directory or configured roots'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like list-request-filters and discover-environments. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Use this when the user gives a partial collection name instead of a full path.' That tells the agent the discovery scenario this tool serves, but there are no when-not conditions and no named alternatives for the full-path case.

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