get_community_collections

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses read-only behavior, server-side auth injection, throttling under LearnWorlds' rate cap, retries on 429/5xx, the exact return format, and error handling for non-2xx responses. This far exceeds what annotations already 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?

The description is front-loaded with the READ-ONLY badge and HTTP method, then organized into clear Behavior, Returns, and Use when sections. Every sentence provides actionable operational information without fluff.

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 simple no-parameter list tool, the description is fully complete: it states what is returned, ordering, authentication model, rate-limit behavior, retry policy, and error semantics. No output schema exists, so the description's return format explanation is essential and sufficient.

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 and the schema already covers this completely. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; there is no parameter information missing, though the description also has no parameter-level detail to add.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get all community collections') and clarifies it returns the school's community collections in sorted order. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_community_spaces and get_community_posts because it targets collections specifically.

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 states when to use it: 'safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting.' It also tells the agent when not to use it ('Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool') and lists related community tools as alternatives.

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