List Collections By Name

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, case sensitivity, or result limits beyond the schema. Credit is not given for what annotations already convey.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. It could be more structured (e.g., front-loading key behavior), but it is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and many siblings, the description omits important context like pagination semantics (index, nValues), sorting, and the effect of exactMatch. An agent would need to infer usage solely from parameter names.

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 coverage is 100% (all 6 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description does not augment parameter meaning, e.g., it doesn't explain how exactMatch interacts or default sort behavior.

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?

Description is 'Search for collections by name.' It clearly specifies a verb (Search), resource (collections), and scope (by name), distinguishing it from sibling tools like transkribus_coll_list (lists all) and transkribus_coll_list_for_user (lists for a user).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to choose search-by-name over listing all collections, nor does it exclude cases like exact match or pagination preferences.

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