List collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the flat format with parentId, explicit note on no pagination ('all collections come back at once'), and that it includes both owned and membership collections. These go beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three sentences, all essential. First sentence states purpose and output, second explains structure, third clarifies no pagination. No filler. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points for readability.

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, no-output-schema tool with good annotations, this description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect: shape (flat list), field semantics (parentId null = top level), cardinality (all at once), and scope (owned or member). No gaps.

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 schema has no parameters and 100% coverage, so the description's job is lighter. It adds context about the kind of results expected (flat list, parentId semantics, link count), which helps the agent interpret the incoming data structure even without an 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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and clearly states what the tool returns: every collection the user owns or is a member of, along with link count. It also distinguishes itself from other list operations by specifying that the result is flat (with parentId for nesting) and not paged.

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 this is for getting an overview of all available collections without pagination. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over sibling tools like get_collection or list_tags, nor does it mention any prerequisites or restrictions (e.g., why you might prefer a filtered query if it existed).

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