To curate a collection is to be an editor, determining what to include and what to exclude. From a curated selection of tools, I expect to see a selection of the best tools, chosen by a knowledgable curator who has evaluated the tools in some way.
So for example, if you said "I want to start a library, donate any books you have at my house" that would not be a "curated" collection in my opionion. If you went through & evaluated the books, selecting only those that you'd personally recommend and discarding the rest, that would be a "curated" collection.
(Strictly speaking any maintenance of a collection even just "dump everything at my door at I'll put it on the pile" could be considered "curation" but to call a list of tools "curated" suggests there's some selection going on, and there does not appear to be on this list.)
EDIT: In fact, all of the definitions of "curate" here[0] start with the word "select," for example "Select, organize, and look after the items in (a collection or exhibition)." This fits my meaning. This definition[1] of "curator" requires one to merely have "care and superintendence of something," so in that sense the list is "curated" insofar as someone looks at PRs and clicks the "merge" button.
The Miriam-Webster definition, however, speaks of curating a more general "something" rather than a "collection." If you "curate" a statue by cleaning & protecting it, fine, you don't need to select the statue. However, when a collection is curated, in my opinion, this necessarily implies selection, not just maintenance.
Is this "curated"? It seems like an exhaustive "dump" of toolkits.