list_collections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it lists collections but doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., pagination, error handling). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity of a list operation with authentication parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, response format, or error handling, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool correctly in context with its siblings.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('network' and 'access_token') with examples and requirements. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'collections available in an Omics AI Explorer network', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tables', which might list different resources in the same network, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tables' or 'query_table'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as network selection, or exclusions, making it unclear how it fits into the broader toolset.

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