list_collections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does communicate that the result is a tree and that visibility flags and object membership are included, but it does not specify the exact return structure, whether all collections are included, or how the flags are represented—especially important given there is no output schema.

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, tightly packed phrase that names the object, the structure, and the relevant fields. It is front-loaded with the most identifying term and contains no filler.

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 zero-parameter listing tool this is adequate at a high level, but with no output schema the agent must infer the concrete result format—nested nodes, flat list, field names—from 'tree' alone. One additional sentence describing the return shape would make it fully complete.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain; the empty schema and 100% coverage leave no ambiguity. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource ('collection tree') and the key data it exposes ('object membership and visibility flags'), and the 'list' name implies read-only enumeration. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but its collection focus clearly separates it from list_objects and list_materials.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is provided. The zero-parameter signature and sibling list tools imply it is the collection-hierarchy counterpart to tools like list_objects, but the agent must infer when to choose this over alternatives.

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