list_schemas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get list', which implies a read operation, but it does not mention side effects, return format, ordering, pagination, or error behavior. Without annotations, this is a significant gap for a tool that could have hidden behaviors.

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, consisting of a single sentence and the parameter listing. It is front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words. For a simple list tool, this is an appropriate size.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and an output schema exists, which reduces the need to explain return values. However, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, making it only minimally complete. It is adequate for a very simple read operation but leaves gaps in context.

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 description repeats the parameter name 'project_uuid' and calls it 'UUID проекта', which adds no information beyond the schema's property title. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it does not provide any additional semantics about the parameter, such as format validity or project lookup specifics.

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's function: 'Получить список схем внутри проекта' (Get list of schemas inside a project). It uses a specific verb 'list' and a resource 'schemas', and it is distinct from sibling tools like create_schema or delete_schema. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does, without noting any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. There is no explicit or implicit comparison to siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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