get_collections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key behavior (root-level only by default, nested collections when include_children is true). However, it doesn't clarify whether nested collections are returned recursively or only immediate children, nor does it mention pagination, response format, or any other side effects. Core behavior is covered, but depth is limited.

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 with two clear parts: the primary purpose and the optional parameter behavior. Every word earns its place, and the primary action is front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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 only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent how to get root-level collections and optionally include nested ones. The main omission is the absence of any description of the response structure or whether nested collections are one-level or recursive, but the tool name and simplicity make these less critical.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description slightly reinforces the parameter's meaning ('returns nested collections') but adds little beyond what the schema already states. It does not add syntax, format, or edge-case information.

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 a specific verb and resource, 'Get root-level collections', with a clear scope qualifier ('root-level') that distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_collection, which presumably fetches a single collection. The optional include_children behavior further clarifies the exact capability.

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 clear context on parameter usage ('Set include_children=true to also return nested collections') but does not explicitly compare against alternative tools such as get_collection or mention when not to use this tool. The 'root-level' wording implies a listing use case, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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