Combined MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but doesn't specify permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'all schemas' entails (e.g., system vs. user schemas). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with authentication parameters.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 (2 parameters, authentication required) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks behavioral details like permissions or scope, which are important for a database listing tool with no annotations.

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 description adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'db_user' is explained as 'Database user for authentication' and 'db_group' as 'Optional database group for permissions'. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well by clarifying the purpose of each parameter beyond their names.

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' and resource 'all schemas in the Redshift database', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tables' or 'describe_table', which would require a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tables' or 'describe_table'. It mentions authentication parameters but doesn't explain usage context or prerequisites beyond that.

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