all_collections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read-only action ('returns') which implies safety, but it does not mention ordering, pagination, inclusion of hidden or system collections, or error behavior. This is adequate for a simple listing tool but lacks richer context.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and free of extraneous information. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states exactly what the tool returns. It could be enhanced by specifying the return format (e.g., list of collection names versus full collection metadata), but given the low complexity, the existing description is nearly sufficient.

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 the schema confirms an empty properties object. With 100% schema description coverage and no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 'Returns all collections in the database' uses a specific verb ('returns') and a clear resource ('all collections') with a scope ('in the database'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fetch_collection_schema or fetch_collection_data, which target a specific collection's schema or data, by focusing on the top-level enumeration of all collections.

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 its usage—when you need to list all collections—but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It offers no exclusions or conditions, such as 'use this to discover collection names before querying with fetch_collection_data.' The usage context is clear but not elaborated.

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