list_shopify_collections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the tool lists collections with counts but does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, network behavior, or data format details. For a simple read operation, this is acceptable but minimal; it does not contradict annotations (none exist) and provides some context about output (product counts).

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 two sentences, both purposeful: the first states what the tool does, the second gives usage guidance. There is zero wasteful text, and the structure is appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, output schema exists) and the description covers basic purpose and usage. However, it does not explain the store_url parameter or any behavioral details like pagination or output shape, relying entirely on the output schema (not shown here). Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not exceptional, missing some context that could help the agent use it correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter store_url, and the description does not explain it at all. The tool description only mentions 'a Shopify store's collections' but does not clarify the format, scheme, or required structure of store_url. Since the schema provides no guidance and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, this is a significant gap.

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 clearly states the tool lists a Shopify store's collections and includes product counts, which is specific and distinct from the sibling extract_shopify_store tool. It names the resource (collections) and the action (list) without ambiguity.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this to pick which collections to extract before calling extract_shopify_store.' It gives a clear use case and directly references the alternative/extraction tool, leaving no doubt about its purpose in the workflow.

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