list_collectors

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is free ('Free to call'), and it details what each entry contains (input/output schema, examples, health, price). It does not mention rate limits, caching, or that it's a read-only operation, but for a listing tool these are minor. The description goes beyond a simple 'list' by explaining the structure of the response.

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 somewhat long because it enumerates all 31 Collectors, but that list is arguably useful for an agent to know the available options upfront. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a definition and the list. Each sentence adds value. It's not overly verbose given the need to identify the Collectors.

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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the response will contain (schema, examples, health, price) and that it's free. There are no missing pieces an agent needs to know before calling it, given its simplicity.

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 takes no parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description doesn't need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds context about what the tool returns, which is beyond the 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 states the exact purpose: listing 31 ready-made Collectors. It clearly differentiates them from the sibling tools (run_collector, collector_run_status) by describing what a Collector is and that this tool only lists them, not runs them. The verb 'List' and the resource 'Collectors' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

While it's evident that this tool is meant to be called before running a Collector (given the siblings run_collector and collector_run_status), the description does not explicitly state 'use this to see available Collectors before running one' or contrast it with alternatives. It only implies usage by listing capabilities. No explicit guidance on when not to use it.

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