list_collections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It specifies that the tool returns a list of collection names and codebase paths, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, or rate limits. For a read-only list tool, the transparency is adequate but minimal.

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 very concise—two sentences with no superfluous information. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second outlines the return format.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete. It could elaborate on the format of the return values (e.g., strings vs. complex objects), but overall it provides sufficient context for a simple 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 tool has no parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description does not need to add parameter details, so the baseline is 4. It briefly describes the return value, which complements the existing output schema.

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 action ('List all indexed codebases') and identifies the resource ('collections' or 'codebases'). It directly distinguishes from sibling tools, which involve searching, deleting, or reindexing, making the purpose 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use it, prerequisites). While the purpose is clear, the description does not provide context about usage scenarios or exclusions, which would help an agent decide.

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