List collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the output scope (titles, view mode, folders, catalog sources), but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or behavior for a missing/invalid profile; without an output schema this is a moderate gap.

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 conveys the core operation, the scope, and the expected output fields with no filler. The parenthetical is compact and economical.

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 read-only list operation with one optional parameter and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete: it states the target and output fields, and the annotations plus schema cover safety and constraints. It would be fully complete if it described the return shape or the default profile behavior, hence not a 5.

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 0% and the description does not explain profile_id beyond the indirect phrase 'a profile's'. It does not mention that profile_id is optional, defaults to 1, or takes values 1-6; the schema supplies constraints but the description fails to meaningfully compensate for its lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly identifies the operation ('List') and the target resource ('a profile's custom collections'), and narrows the expected output to titles, view mode, folders, and catalog sources. This distinguishes it from sibling list operations such as nuvio_list_plugins and nuvio_list_profiles.

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 communicates a clear use case: retrieve the custom collections belonging to a profile. It does not explicitly contrast with mutating collection tools like nuvio_update_collection or nuvio_delete_collection, so it stops short of a 5, but the intent is unambiguous.

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