list_collects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it only partially does so: it implies an authentication requirement ('logged-in user's') and that folders are returned, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, failure modes when unauthenticated, or whether private/hidden collections are included.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, covering the verb, scope, resource, and returned fields in one pass.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (id, name, video count) so an agent knows what to expect. The main residual gap is behavioral detail such as auth failure and result ordering, which is acceptable but leaves a small hole.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to compensate for and it correctly avoids inventing parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Douyin collection folders / 收藏夹/专辑) scoped to the logged-in user, which distinguishes it from the video-oriented siblings list_collection_videos and get_collect_videos. The parenthetical gloss and the listed return fields make the resource unambiguous, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting this tool over list_collection_videos or get_collect_videos, and no prerequisites stated. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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