chroma_list_collections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (list of names or a sentinel value) and mentions pagination. However, it does not clarify behavior when limit/offset exceed bounds (e.g., does it return an error or empty list?). The phrase 'list all' conflicts with pagination, causing slight ambiguity.

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 concise: a single-line purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clean and easy to parse. No unnecessary words.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 optional parameters, the description reasonably covers purpose and return format. However, it lacks details on pagination defaults (e.g., default limit when omitted) and error handling for invalid parameters. The slight inconsistency 'list all' vs pagination reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 0% (parameters lack descriptions), so the description must compensate. It explains 'limit: Optional maximum number of collections to return' and 'offset: Optional number of collections to skip before returning results.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, clarifying defaults (None) and optionality.

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 'List all collection names in the Chroma database with pagination support.' This specific verb ('list') and resource ('collection names') distinguishes it from siblings like chroma_get_collection_info (which retrieves details of a single collection) and chroma_create_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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage for listing collection names, but lacks cues like 'use this to get an overview of collections; for details on a specific collection, use chroma_get_collection_info.' The pagination support is mentioned but no guidance on setting limit/offset.

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