List the local collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the parsing behavior, comment handling, output summary totals, and explicitly states that unresolvable lines become warnings rather than errors. This adds valuable context about failure modes and behavior.

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, packed with relevant information but every clause earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides necessary configuration and output details without redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the source file, format, parsing rules, output content, and error handling, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing to add beyond the empty schema, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior rather than parameter details.

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 that the tool provides a parsed and resolved view of the local collection file, with specific details about the file path and output contents (counts, sets, kinds, legality). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like collection_add, collection_remove, and search_cards.

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 gives clear context about when to use the tool—for inspecting the local collection—and specifies configuration details (env POKEMON_COLLECTION_PATH, default path, line format). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or scenarios where it should not be used, so it falls short of the highest tier.

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