list_collections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action; it does not mention pagination behavior, return format, ordering, authentication, or read-only guarantees. The schema hints at pagination via page/limit, but the description doesn't clarify that 'all collections' may require multiple paginated calls.

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 sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and scope efficiently, front-loading the key information.

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 list tool with a fully documented schema, the description is adequate but lacks key context. There is no output schema, so the description does not explain return values or pagination semantics. The phrase 'all collections' could mislead an agent into thinking a single call returns everything, when page/limit suggest otherwise. However, given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 schema already explains each parameter (orgId, page, limit). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, thus it meets the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 ("List") and resource ("collections") with a clear scope ("in a GitBook organization"), distinguishing it from siblings like get_collection (singular) and list_spaces (different resource). It is immediately obvious what the tool does.

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 usage (use this when you need to list collections) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like get_collection or list_spaces are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferred over others.

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