document_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List all...' without detailing side effects, return format, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a read-only list operation, this is minimal but not misleading.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and has no wasted words. Slightly lower because it lacks structure or bullet points, but still effective.

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 simplicity of the tool and lack of output schema, the description should at least hint at the return format (e.g., list of schema names or objects). It does not, leaving the agent ignorant of what 'list all' means in practice. More completeness would be expected.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'session' with a description in the schema. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists all schema/component definitions in the document, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like document_get_schema (specific schema) and document_add_schema (adds schemas). However, 'schema/component definitions' could be more precise, but context from siblings helps.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like document_get_schema or document_list_operations. The description implicitly suggests it is for listing all schemas, but does not specify when not to use it or mention any prerequisites.

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