list_collections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it is a bare noun phrase that discloses only the session scope. It does not state whether the call is read-only, what 'session' means, whether results persist, or what the response shape is. The agent is left to assume safe read behavior without any confirmation.

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?

A single compact phrase in Korean with no filler words, and the session-scope qualifier is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a zero-parameter tool, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 list tool this is nearly adequate, but key context is missing: the definition of 'session' is never explained, and with no output schema the agent cannot anticipate the response structure or empty-list behavior. The description covers scope but leaves the rest to inference.

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 takes zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no arguments for the description to clarify, and it appropriately does not invent any.

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 identifies the resource precisely — 'collection tasks started in this session' — and the 'list' verb is carried by the tool name itself. The session-scope qualifier adds a meaningful boundary beyond a generic collections listing. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate against sibling tools such as check_collection, so it falls short of a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over start_collection, check_collection, or cancel_collection. It states only an output scope ('started in this session') with no exclusions, conditions, or named alternatives. An agent must infer all selection logic from sibling names alone.

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