getCollections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds the workspace requirement constraint, which is useful context beyond annotations, but doesn't describe behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when parameters are omitted.

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 a single sentence that wastes space by repeating the annotation title. It's under-specified rather than concise - it fails to state the tool's purpose while using its limited length to duplicate structured information. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one doesn't.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (collections data), how results are structured, or how it differs from similar tools. With rich annotations but no output schema, the description should provide more context about expected returns and tool differentiation.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions the workspace parameter requirement, which is already clear from the schema's required array. It adds no additional meaning about parameter interactions, default behaviors, or semantic nuances beyond what the schema provides.

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 is a tautology that restates the annotation title verbatim without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't mention that this tool retrieves collections, what collections are, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'getCollection' (singular) or 'getSpecCollections'.

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 context by stating the workspace ID is required, but doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCollection' (singular) or 'getSpecCollections', nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the required parameter.

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