list_schemas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('List all'), but does not disclose any specific behaviors such as whether it returns a complete list, whether any filtering applies, or any potential side effects. The description is minimal and does not add much beyond what the name already conveys.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and perfectly 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is complete enough. It conveys exactly what the tool does. The output schema presumably documents the return format, so no further elaboration is needed.

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 there are no semantics to clarify. The description explicitly says 'all user schemas,' which effectively covers the scope. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description adds context about the scope ('all user schemas').

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: 'List all user schemas in the SQL Server database.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('user schemas'), and is clearly distinguished from siblings like list_tables and get_table_schema by focusing on schemas specifically.

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 implies usage (when you need to see schemas), but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, nor any alternatives or exclusions. It's a basic 'use this to list schemas' with no deeper contextual advice.

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