List Collections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It communicates a read-style listing operation and the return format ('slash-joined paths (Parent/Child)'), which adds hierarchy semantics not present in the schema. It does not explicitly say the operation is non-destructive or describe pagination behavior, though the cursor parameter hints at it.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence states the action, resource, and output shape. There is no fluff, and the useful detail about slash-joined paths earns its place.

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: no required parameters, no nested objects, and the schema covers the pagination mechanics. The description covers what is returned and its format. A minor gap is the lack of explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but this does not materially hurt invocation.

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 both parameters already have clear descriptions: 'limit' is max collections per page and 'cursor' is the next_cursor from a previous call. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning but does not need to, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('List') and a clear resource ('the library's collections'), and it adds the output form ('slash-joined paths (Parent/Child)'). This differentiates list_collections from siblings like list_tags or collection_items even without opening their schemas.

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 use case: retrieve the library's collections. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling names provide context, but the description itself does not route the agent.

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