list_collections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only listing operation and mentions the availability condition, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it describe error behavior or output format details beyond 'chunk and file counts'.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds a necessary condition. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool with no parameters, the description is nearly complete. It states what is returned (chunk and file counts) and when it is available. It lacks explicit notes on edge cases or errors, but for a listing operation, the provided context is sufficient.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, the baseline for high coverage is 3, and there is no parameter information to add. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it also does not enhance anything beyond the baseline.

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 tool's function: listing available collections and providing chunk and file counts. It uses a specific verb ('List') and object ('collections'), making the purpose unambiguous even without comparing to siblings.

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?

It provides an explicit precondition for use: 'Only available in multi-collection mode (LORE_DB_DIR set)'. This guides the agent on when this tool is applicable. However, it does not contrast with alternatives like search_docs or list_indexed_sources, so the guidance is not fully comprehensive.

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