List Collections

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

Annotations already indicate this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond these annotations: it discloses that output includes collection type, rules, and product count, and importantly notes that only AUTOMATED collections propagate to external feeds. This aligns with annotations and does not contradict them.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the tool's primary action, the second adds critical output details and a domain-specific caveat. There is no redundant language, and each sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list operation with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is adequate. It communicates what the tool returns and highlights an important distinction (manual vs. automated) that affects downstream behavior. Without an output schema, it might ideally mention pagination or the default limit, but the presence of a cursor parameter in the schema compensates.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for all 5 parameters, each with a description. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already specifies, so the baseline of 3 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 starts with a specific verb+resource pattern: 'List collections in a store,' clearly distinguishing this from the sibling collection_get. It also details the outcome (shows MANUAL vs AUTOMATED, rules, product count), which differentiates its scope unambiguously.

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 clear context: it lists collections for a given store and explains a key detail about AUTOMATED collections propagating to external feeds, implying which use cases it serves. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like collection_get.

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