get_collection_names

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states it returns a list of collection names with examples, which is adequate for a read-only query. It does not cover ordering or uniqueness, but the simplicity mitigates this.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with purpose and provides a concrete example of expected output.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters or output schema. The description covers what the tool does and what it returns, sufficient for an agent to use it correctly. Minor gaps (e.g., no mention of sorting) are acceptable given the tool's trivial nature.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4; the description adds value by clarifying the output format (list of names) beyond the empty 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 tool's purpose: discovering available data types in the NMDC database by returning collection names. It distinguishes from siblings like get_all_collection_ids (IDs vs names) and get_collection_stats (stats vs names).

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 says 'Use this tool to discover what types of data are available', which implies when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives (e.g., get_all_collection_ids for IDs), limiting guidance.

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