erara_list_collections

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the return format (tabular overview with set identifier and name) and clarifies that the optional filter narrows by library name, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage note, and an Args/Returns section. It is slightly verbose for a tool with one optional parameter, but every section contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no nesting), the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, how the output can be used with a sibling tool, and what the return looks like. It does not discuss pagination or limits, but these are not significant concerns for this type of listing operation.

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 description restates the filter_name parameter and its purpose, but the input schema already provides an equivalent description with additional constraints (maxLength, default null). No new semantic meaning is added beyond what the schema supplies, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 represented in e-rara. It also differentiates from the sibling erara_list_records by explaining that the returned set specifiers can be used there, making the purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 the user that the set-spec values can be used as set_spec in erara_list_records to filter records by library. This provides clear usage context and a direct connection to a related tool, though it does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool.

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