list_collections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that filtering, sorting and pagination are optional, but says nothing about whether the listing is admin-scoped, whether it returns only accessible collections, or what the defaults are — all relevant for a PocketBase collections endpoint.

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 the resource first and capabilities second; nothing is redundant. It is arguably too terse for the behavioral gaps it leaves, but there is no wasted wording.

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 output schema covers return values and the input schema covers all four optional parameters, so the mechanical calling information is complete. What is missing relative to a collections-listing tool is the permission/auth context and any statement of listing scope.

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%, so page, per_page, sort and filter are already fully documented with defaults and examples. The description only echoes the parameter categories at a high level and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ("List all collections") and names the three supported operations. It is distinguishable from get_collection (singular retrieval) by the word "all", though it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_collection, and no prerequisites such as required auth scope. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the word "optional".

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