List collections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It adds a valuable behavioral fact: the tool includes internal system collections like _superusers and _authOrigins, which could surprise users. However, it does not mention that it is read-only, does not describe response shape, and omits potential performance or permission considerations, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 four compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, then adds the key system-collections behavior and two parameter examples, each earning its place. It is succinct yet informative.

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 description and schema together explain parameters and basic behavior well, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a paginated list of collection objects). It also does not mention sibling tools or when to use a more specific alternative, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds concrete examples for filter and sort (e.g., 'type = "auth"' and '-created'), which slightly enriches understanding but does not substantially go beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('collections'), further clarifying them as 'database tables / schemas'. It explicitly notes that system collections are included, which distinguishes it from narrower list tools like list_superusers and from single-collection getters like get_collection.

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 implies usage for paginated, filterable, and sortable collection listing, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_collection or get_collection_scaffolds. It provides useful filter and sort examples, but no exclusion criteria or direct sibling comparisons, leaving selection somewhat to inference.

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