List collections

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already informs the agent that this is a read-only operation. The description adds value beyond that by explaining the concept of a collection and its STATIC/DYNAMIC nature, which helps the agent understand the data domain. It also mentions pagination, which is a behavioral trait. While it doesn't detail return structure or edge cases, the annotation coverage lowers the burden, and the added context is meaningful.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope ('List collections of the store (paginated)'), followed by a concise domain clarification. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is highly efficient 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the readOnlyHint annotation, and a fully described schema, the description is largely complete. It provides the essential purpose, pagination context, and domain definition. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the general expectation for list operations, but the description could be slightly richer by mentioning what the returned collection objects contain or any ordering behavior. Still, it is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including types, defaults, and purpose. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond restating the pagination behavior. Since the schema fully handles parameter semantics, the description does not need to compensate, and the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the verb ('List'), the resource ('collections of the store'), and a key behavior (paginated). It also distinguishes the concept from other list tools (e.g., list_categories) by defining what a collection is and its two types (STATIC/DYNAMIC). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings like get_collection.

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 usage—when you need to list collections—and provides context about collection types, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_collection for a single collection or manage_collection_cards for manual cards). There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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