list_collectives

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

The description discloses the authentication requirement ('authenticated user') and scope ('has access to'), which are behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. It also states the return fields, adding value. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description supplements this with scope and return info without contradicting 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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose ('List all Collectives the authenticated user has access to'), and the second specifies the return payload. There is no filler or redundancy; every word 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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is complete: it states the operation, scope, authentication, and return fields. No output schema is provided, but the description explicitly lists what the tool returns. No missing information prevents an agent from calling it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding any unnecessary parameter information, leaving the schema empty and the description focused on behavior.

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 Collectives the authenticated user has access to, specifying the verb 'List' and the resource 'Collectives'. It also enumerates returned fields (id, name, slug, emoji, permission levels), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_trashed_collectives, create_collective, and update_collective.

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 for when to use the tool: when listing all accessible Collectives. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use list_trashed_collectives instead), but the scope and return fields make the intended use obvious. Since there are no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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