List Collections

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds the behavioral detail that the result set is limited to 'active owned' Collections, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any further behavior such as ordering, pagination, or the meaning of 'active'/'owned', leaving some transparency gaps beyond 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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a valuable clarifying definition without any redundancy.

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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description adequately covers the action, filters, and semantic nature. It lacks an explicit return structure, but since there is no output schema and no parameters, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. A minor gap is not naming a sibling tool or providing integration context, but overall it is well-rounded.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain any. The terms 'active' and 'owned' are fixed filters rather than parameters, and the empty schema already conveys all parameter information. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 specific action ('List'), a resource ('Collections'), and two scoping filters ('active', 'owned'). It also distinguishes this tool from the related 'list_containers' by clarifying that a Collection is a typed Container projection. This is a clear, differentiated purpose.

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 implies the tool is for listing active owned Collections, and the phrase 'typed Container projection' hints at a distinction from raw Containers. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of list_containers, list_projects, or other list tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or fallback alternatives.

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