list_collections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a list (read-only) and discloses the return format ('a list of collections with their IDs and names'). It does not mention side effects or auth requirements, but for a parameterless read tool the description 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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adds concise explanatory context and a usage example. It is efficient with no wasted words, and the structure flows logically from purpose to usage to return.

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, parameterless listing tool, this description is complete. It explains what collections are, how they relate to boards, when to use this tool vs. list_boards, and what the return contains. The presence of an output schema further covers return details, so nothing necessary is missing.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly adds no parameter-level detail, which aligns with the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 and resource ('List all collections (folders) in the organization') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_boards by explaining that collections are containers for boards. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides usage guidance: 'If you're looking for a board but can't find it with list_boards, it may be inside a collection' and instructs to use list_boards(collection="name") to see boards inside a collection. It clearly says when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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