getSpecCollections

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description doesn't contradict these but adds value by specifying 'generated collections' (implying these are auto-generated from specs) and 'all' (suggesting comprehensive retrieval), which aren't covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior or response format, which would be helpful given the limit and cursor parameters.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema fully describes parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what 'gets' returns (e.g., list format, fields), and it misses pagination context despite limit/cursor parameters. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, more behavioral detail would improve completeness.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'specId' relates to 'generated collections' or clarify the 'elementType' constraint). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden, but no extra value is provided.

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 the verb ('Gets') and resource ('all of an API specification's generated collections'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCollections' or 'getCollection', which might retrieve different scopes of collections, leaving some ambiguity about sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'getCollections' and 'getCollection' that might retrieve collections differently, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on names alone.

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