list_art_collections

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List art collections with optional filters. System-level operation.' It does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, what pagination behavior is (beyond schema defaults), authentication needs, or the expected response structure. This is insufficient for safe tool invocation.

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 extremely concise (two sentences, 8 words). Each sentence earns its place: the first states purpose, the second adds an important scope qualifier. There is no redundancy. However, the extreme brevity could be seen as under-specification, but structurally it is efficient.

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?

Given three parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits crucial context such as what 'art collections' contain, how to interpret the output, whether the result is sorted, and what 'system-level' implies for access control. The agent lacks enough information to use this tool confidently.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond 'optional filters' – it does not explain how filters interact or the meaning of 'parent_id'. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and no additional context is provided.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('art collections'), and mentions optional filters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_art_collection' (singular) and 'list_arts' (different resource). The phrase 'System-level operation' adds scope context. However, it could be more specific about what data is returned (e.g., list of IDs vs details).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_art_collection' or 'list_arts'. The phrase 'System-level operation' hints at permission requirements but does not clarify use cases or exclusions. This is a significant gap given the many related sibling tools.

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