list-collections

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world. The description adds that 'Results are cached', which is useful behavioral context but not extensive. No contradictory information is present.

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?

Two sentences, each carrying essential information: what the tool does, what a collection is, its place in exploration, and caching behavior. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity of a list tool with pagination and annotations present, the description covers key aspects but lacks mention of the return structure or pagination details, which the schema partially covers. Adequate but not fully complete.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions, so the tool description does not need to add parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it offers no extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 it lists Favro collections and explains what a collection represents, calling it 'the usual entry point'. This gives strong purpose clarity, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list-boards or list-organizations, preventing a perfect score.

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 implies the tool is the first step for exploration ('usual entry point'), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or context switching advice is given.

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