List Collections By Name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only the name-search scope and does not describe output format, pagination defaults, or exactMatch behavior, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it concise. However, it is minimal to the point of omitting useful context, so it does not earn 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?

For a read-only list tool with full parameter schema and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and many sibling list/search tools, the agent is left to infer return shape and when to choose this over alternatives.

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%, so the description does not need to redefine the six parameters. It adds no extra defaults or semantics such as the meaning of nValues=-1 or how exactMatch changes behavior, keeping this at the baseline.

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 states a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('collections') with a name-based scope, and the title reinforces the same idea. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling collection-listing tools, but the 'by name' qualifier distinguishes it from generic list variants.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided; the description only restates the tool's purpose. Given many sibling tools like transkribus_coll_list, transkribus_coll_list_paged, and transkribus_coll_list_for_user, an agent gets no help deciding which tool to choose.

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