List Enforced Schemas

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

The description reinforces the readOnlyHint annotation and adds a non-obvious guarantee: 'This inspection is read-only and never creates a missing keyspace.' It also documents argument precedence, which is behavioral context beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by targeted usage guidance and a compact Args section. There is no filler; each sentence adds operational information.

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 two-optional-parameter inspection tool, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, defaults, and safety. It stops short of describing the exact output shape, but 'including field data types' gives a reasonable indication of the return content.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section compensates fully: it explains keyspace as an explicit name with precedence, scope as an owner/user memory scope mapping to a configured keyspace, the special 'shared' value, and the default behavior when both are omitted.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List schemas enforced on a keyspace, including field data types.' This makes the tool's function immediately identifiable and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like montycat_list_keyspaces and montycat_list_memories.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use context: 'Use this before a structured write or retrieval when the target keyspace's required fields or types are unknown' and explains how it helps with typed filters. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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