List API Collections

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds the active-workspace scoping and command-bus context, but offers no additional behavioral details such as ordering, pagination, or workspace membership semantics.

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 one focused sentence, front-loads the verb and resource, and contains no filler or redundant detail. It is appropriately sized for such a simple list operation.

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 low complexity, full schema coverage, safe-reader annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool effectively. No major missing information stands out.

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 100% because workspaceId has an embedded explanation and is optional. The description adds little beyond what the schema already says, relying on the schema to carry parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and identifies the resource ('API request collections') plus its scope ('for the active workspace'). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like list_requests or workspace.list.

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 active-workspace scoping implies when the tool is useful, and the workspaceId parameter is covered in the schema. However, it does not provide explicit guidance about when to choose this over related tools such as api.list_requests or when not to use it.

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