get_my_collections

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuinely useful context beyond the schema — the Pro API key requirement and the private/per-user scope — but says nothing about result size, pagination, behavior when no collections exist, or what is returned.

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 sentence with zero filler; the resource description comes first and the access prerequisite is placed in a trailing parenthetical. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs trimming.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope and the auth prerequisite, which is what an agent needs to decide whether it may call it at all. The one remaining gap is any hint about the shape or size of the returned collection list.

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, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add, and it correctly 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 uses a specific verb ("Retrieve") with two named resources ("private custom collections and saved bookmarks") scoped to "the authenticated user". The "my/private" framing distinguishes it from the generic list_collections sibling, though that distinction is implied by the name rather than stated explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical "Requires OpenSVG Pro API Key" tells an agent the prerequisite for calling it, and "authenticated user" signals the scope. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. use list_collections for public/shared collections).

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