oura_colecciones

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool shows collection details, implying it is a read-only reference, but it does not explicitly say that it has no side effects or that it returns static information. Given the zero-parameter nature and simple purpose, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences, with the primary information upfront and usage guidance in the second sentence. Every word contributes meaning, and it is highly scannable for an agent.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool provides (collection details) and when to use it, though it could explicitly mention the output format or that it is a static reference. The sibling context further clarifies its role.

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 no parameters (schema shows empty properties), and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds context by noting that the tool reports what parameters each collection requires, which is helpful for using the information it provides. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description earns that.

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 indicates that the tool provides an overview of the 19 Oura collections, what each contains, and the parameters required. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating to use it before 'oura_consultar' if unsure of the exact name, which clarifies its unique role.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Úsala antes de `oura_consultar` si no estás seguro del nombre exacto' (Use it before oura_consultar if unsure of the exact name). This clearly tells when to use this tool over its sibling, covering the key decision point.

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