list_schemas

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 does disclose the return shape (names only, not full schema definitions), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, auth requirements, or whether the list is static. For a zero-argument listing tool this is thin but adequate.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and the exact payload returned.

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 trivial zero-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and implies the discovery role. Only the relationship to 'extract' and the absence of any safety signal keep it from being fully 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly signals a no-input call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns the names of the extraction schemas the server can fill. The scope ('names' only) is clear, and it is implicitly distinguishable from the sibling 'extract', which fills a schema rather than enumerating them. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or the relationship.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery step preceding 'extract', but the description never says when to call it or that it is a prerequisite for extraction. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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