List Schemas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral detail: it excludes system schemas and returns schema names with owners. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying scope and return format.

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 extremely concise (2 sentences plus structured Args/Returns). Every sentence adds value: purpose, scope (excludes system schemas), and return content. No wasted words.

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 read-only listing tool, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it excludes, what it returns, and that it takes no arguments. Annotations cover safety, and no output schema is needed given the verbal description of return values.

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 has no parameters, and the input schema confirms this (100% coverage). The description explicitly states 'Args: None', which provides clarity. With 0 parameters, baseline is 4.

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 schemas in the KingBase database, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on tables, queries, and execution. The verb 'List' and resource 'schemas' are specific and unambiguous.

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 that it returns schema names excluding internal system schemas, which provides context on when to use it (to get clean user schema lists). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though sibling tool names make the distinction clear.

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