list_schemas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists non-system schemas and that they are accessible via a remote tunnel. It does not mention side effects (likely none), authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. Critical information is missing.

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, well-structured sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value, specifying the action, resource, and scope without any unnecessary verbiage.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks details about the output format (e.g., list of schema names only or with metadata), ordering, or any limitations. It is sufficient for a simple discovery tool but not 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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the input schema. The schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there is nothing more to explain.

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 non-system PostgreSQL schemas available through the remote tunnel. It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (schemas), and the qualifier 'non-system' distinguishes it from system schemas. The sibling tools list_tables, describe_table, query, and ping are all distinct, so there is no confusion.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says schemas are available through the remote tunnel, implying they are accessible, but does not explain prerequisites, when to use, or when not to use. No comparisons or usage context is provided.

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