get_collectors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive status, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the word 'List'—no mention of pagination, filtering semantics, response shape, or API-side constraints, so it contributes nothing beyond what annotations already provide.

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?

At four words, the description is tightly written with no filler, and the core verb/resource is front-loaded. It could have added a second sentence about pagination or alternatives, but as written it is efficient and not bloated.

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?

The tool is simple, all parameters are optional and documented, and annotations cover side effects and idempotency. Missing are any statement about paginated results (default limit 50, offset), response contents given the lack of an output schema, and guidance distinguishing this from the singular get_collector. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, and the individual parameter descriptions document limit, offset, filters, and the raw filter expression with an example. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.

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 a clear resource ('collectors') with the system context ('LogicMonitor'), so an agent can tell this is a read-only enumeration tool. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_collector or get_collector_groups, but the plural resource and tool name make the core purpose clear.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_collector, get_collector_groups, update_collector, or delete_collector. There are no exclusions, context cues, or alternative routing, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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