erara_list_collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds that the output is a tabular string and explains the role of set identifiers, complementing the annotations.

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 concise with two core sentences explaining purpose and usage, followed by structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and information is front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, output clearly described as tabular string), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter, output format, and integration with a sibling tool, leaving no gaps.

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?

Despite schema description coverage being 0%, the tool description explicitly documents the optional filter_name parameter and its purpose. This adds meaning beyond the input schema, though it does not detail constraints like maxLength.

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 all libraries and collections in e-rara, with a specific verb ('listet auf') and resource ('Bibliotheken und Sammlungen'). It distinguishes from siblings by explaining how output set identifiers can be used with erara_list_records.

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 provides a clear usage context: to list collections and obtain set identifiers for use in erara_list_records. It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, though sibling context is provided.

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