list-schemas

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only states the core listing/filtering behavior. It does not mention the spec filter, limit behavior, or what a caller should expect for empty results or errors. There is no contradiction, but disclosure is sparse.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence followed by one illustrative example; there is no filler or repeated schema content. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 low-complexity list tool with a fully self-documenting input schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only notable omission is that the spec filter is present in the schema but not surfaced in the tool description, so agents relying on the description alone could miss a relevant option.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example for prefix but does not clarify spec or limit beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available schema names'), making the tool's function immediately clear. The phrase 'all available' plus optional prefix filtering distinguishes it from detail-retrieval siblings like get-schema.

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 given about when to choose list-schemas over alternatives such as get-schema or search-endpoints, and no exclusions or when-not conditions are stated. The purpose implies a use case, but the description stops short of providing routing guidance.

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