List collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the workspace scoping constraint; it says nothing about ordering, default page size behavior, or workspace-membership semantics.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The trailing 'Args: limit, offset' is redundant with a fully documented schema, but the overall footprint is tight and non-wasteful.

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, non-destructive, zero-required-parameter list tool with full annotation coverage this is minimally sufficient. With no output schema, however, the agent gets no hint of what a collection record contains or how pagination termination works.

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% with per-field descriptions and bounds (1-100, offset >= 0), so the schema does the heavy lifting. 'Args: limit, offset' merely restates the parameter names without adding format, interaction, or defaults guidance — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List all collections') and scope ('in the workspace'), which cleanly separates it from sibling list tools like outline_list_documents and outline_list_users. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus outline_list_collection_documents or outline_search, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The only usage-adjacent text is 'Args: limit, offset', which is not guidance.

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