List schemas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The description discloses the default database behavior, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention any other behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, returns all schemas, or any limitations. It's a read operation presumably, but no explicit guarantee or further transparency.

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 sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the purpose. It states exactly what it does and the default behavior without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description is sufficient for basic use. However, it doesn't provide context on what schemas are returned (e.g., all schemas? only accessible ones?), but for a list operation with a single param, this might be adequate. Since sibling tools like list_tables and list_databases exist, a bit more context on the scope could improve completeness, but it's acceptable for a minimal tool.

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 100% (database param is fully described with default). The description also reiterates the default, reinforcing the parameter semantics. Since coverage is high, baseline is 3, but the description adds a tiny bit of value by repeating the default, though it doesn't add much beyond the schema. A 4 is warranted because the parameter is clearly explained in both schema and description, and there's no confusion.

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 action (list schemas) and adds the default database behavior, which is a specific behavioral detail. It clearly states the action and context arrow. The purpose is clear and distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_schemas by mentioning the default database behavior, which is a specific action, and the schema is clear, and the description is clear. The purpose is clear and the description is a clear and specific action, and the main purpose is clear and the main purpose is clear, with a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_tables or list_databases, but the resource (schemas) is implied by the name and description. Purpose is clear but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 mentions a default database when omitted, providing usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., list_tables, describe_table). The context is implied by the schema name, but no explicit guidance or exclusions are provided.

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