list_collections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format (JSON string with list of names) and edge case behavior (empty array when no collections found), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation, leaving significant gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Example) and front-loads the core purpose. However, some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the endpoint explanation is somewhat wordy), and the example formatting could be cleaner.

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?

Given 4 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job explaining parameters and return values. However, for a tool with no annotations and multiple required parameters, it should provide more behavioral context about error handling, authentication, and operational characteristics to be 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic information for all 4 parameters. It explains what each parameter represents, provides usage guidance for 'endpoint' and 'db_name', and clarifies which parameters are required versus optional. This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all collection names in the specified database.' This is a specific verb+resource combination (list + collection names). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_collection' or 'list_databases', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides some implied usage context by mentioning the endpoint can be obtained from 'describe_cluster' and noting when db_name can be left empty. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_databases' or 'describe_collection', nor does it provide clear exclusions or prerequisites.

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