list_schemas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that the operation uses a cached snapshot (implying non-live data), but does not detail what happens if the snapshot is missing, what 'visible' means (e.g., permission filtering), or that it is a safe read-only operation. Some behavioral context is provided, but gaps remain.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple list tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core function but lacks guidance on cache freshness, prerequisites (e.g., connection must be selected or connection_id must be valid), and the meaning of 'visible.' It is adequate but could be more 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explicitly clarify the connection_id parameter. It refers to 'selected connection' without clearly indicating that connection_id is the required identifier. The description adds little meaning beyond the schema's parameter name.

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 ('List') and resource ('schemas') with a clear scope ('from the selected connection's cached snapshot'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tables and list_procedures, as it specifically targets schemas.

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 phrase 'cached snapshot' implies a read-only, non-live operation, giving some usage context. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives, such as pointing to refresh_schema_cache when the cache is stale. The usage is implied rather than stated.

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