collection_list_collections_by_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a list (read-only) and mentions filtering, but it does not disclose pagination, sorting, default behavior without environment, or any side effects. The term 'service collections' is not defined, and the return format is only vaguely indicated.

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 concise, with a brief purpose statement and a simple Args/Returns section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it includes a docstring-style format that is slightly verbose for an MCP description, and the Returns line adds little detail.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (simple list operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate information for an agent to know the basic purpose and parameters. However, the lack of usage guidelines, clarification of 'service collections', and behavioral details like pagination leave notable gaps, though not severe for a straightforward list tool.

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 0%, so the schema provides zero documentation for the parameters. The description adds some meaning by explaining 'project' as 'Project name to filter by' and 'environment' as 'Optional environment filter', but it is minimal and does not detail expected formats, case sensitivity, or relationship between parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, but with 2 params, a 3 is fair.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('service collections') with a specific filter ('for a specific project'). It is distinct from the sibling 'collection_create_collection' and other collection tools, but it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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 minimal usage context (filtering by project and optional environment) but does not explain when to use this tool versus other collection tools, such as collection_add_resource_to_collection or collection_list_collections (if it exists). No explicit exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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