List Collections for User

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are scoped to a user's accessible collections, without detailing pagination, sorting behavior, or return format.

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. It states the action, resource, and scope immediately, which is appropriate for a tool of this type.

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 7-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but not misleading. It omits pagination behavior, output shape, and sibling-tool distinctions, leaving the schema and annotations to carry most of the context.

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%, and all seven parameters are documented in the input schema, including userid, role, index, nValues, and sort options. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making 3 the appropriate 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List collections') and adds scope ('accessible to a specific user'), so an agent can tell it is a user-scoped collection listing. It does not differentiate from sibling tools such as transkribus_coll_list, transkribus_coll_list_paged, or transkribus_coll_user_list, which limits it to a 4.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name alternatives. With many sibling collection-listing tools available, an agent receives no help choosing this one over transkribus_coll_list or transkribus_coll_user_list.

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