bar_list_collections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the verb. It does not state that it is read-only, whether results are paginated or ordered, or whether authentication is required. Low-risk nature is only implied by the word 'List'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than optimally sized.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema covering return values, the description is nearly sufficient for such a simple tool. The only real gap is the absence of any guidance on ordering, pagination, or how it relates to bar_get_collection.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema cannot be improved upon and the baseline for an empty parameter set applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('cocktail collections'), so the operation is unambiguous. However it offers no differentiation from the many sibling list/get tools (e.g. bar_get_collection, bar_list_cocktails, bar_list_tags), which share the same naming pattern.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus bar_get_collection for a single collection or the other list_* siblings. No prerequisites, no context, no exclusions are given.

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