store_collections

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

The annotations already declare the tool is read-only and non-destructive, so the safe behavior is covered. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral details: it returns a scope value (which may be null), and that output includes both names and a count. While it does not go into error cases or permission requirements, for a simple listing tool the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 compact and well-structured: it states the core function, adds the `store_scope` nuance, and closes with the return shape. It is only three sentences yet covers purpose, scope filtering, and output summary. This is concise without being terse.

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 description covers the action, the scope narrowing, the output (collection names, count, and scope), and the usage context versus `store_list`, which is thorough for a read-only listing tool. The only omission is any explanation of the single `app_id` parameter, and no output schema is provided, but the description gives enough output shape for an agent to proceed. It is slightly incomplete but clearly sufficient for most use cases.

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 schema provides only the parameter name `app_id` and type `string` with zero description coverage. The tool description does not explain what `app_id` means, its format, requirements, or how it affects the result. Even though the name is somewhat self-explanatory in the context of an app's store, an agent would have to guess its exact meaning and whether it is expected to be a literal ID or a filter context. This is a notable gap given only one parameter exists.

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 'List' plus a resource ('SOIL collections'), and explicitly narrows scope to the user's `store_scope`. It also clearly differentiates itself from `store_list` by noting that this tool is how you learn collection names when `store_list` requires a name. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from its siblings.

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 directly tells when this tool is appropriate: when you want to know what collections exist in the store, and it contrasts with `store_list` by pointing out that `store_list` needs a collection name. It also explains the `store_scope` narrowing, so an agent knows this returns only what is visible to them. This is explicit, high-quality usage guidance.

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