List Mudbase collections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the full scope ('every collection'), the content of the result ('each field's name and type'), and the recommended usage context. This is sufficient for a simple read-oriented list operation, though it could mention whether any filtering or pagination exists.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and output scope are front-loaded, and the usage hint is placed in the second sentence without 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?

For a single-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool returns (collections and field types) and when to call it. It does not describe the exact response envelope, but that is less critical for a discovery-oriented read operation.

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%: the only parameter, projectId, is described as 'The Mudbase project ID.' The tool description adds context about collections being project-scoped but does not materially extend the schema's parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('every collection (schema) defined in a Mudbase project'), and further clarifies that it includes field names and types. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with documents, buckets, or files.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Call this before reading or writing documents to see what collections and fields actually exist.' It does not enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is concrete and actionable.

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