store_collections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the scope-narrowing behavior ('store_scope'), what is returned (names, count, applied scope), and the meaning of null scope. It does not mention authorization or error behavior, but for a read-only list operation this is adequately transparent.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value: scope behavior, contrast with store_list, and return contents. It is well-structured and free of 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main use case, return values, and scope behavior. The only notable gap is the lack of explanation about app_id, but overall the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only parameter, app_id, is required and the schema provides no description (0% coverage). The tool description never explains what app_id is, its format, or its relationship to the store. The description relies on the parameter name being self-evident, but does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('SOIL collections under the store'), and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tool store_list by noting that store_list requires a collection name while this tool is how you learn the names. It clearly answers the question 'what's in the store'.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to discover collection names without running a search, and it explicitly contrasts with store_list. However, it does not mention other potentially relevant siblings like store_search or store_stats, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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