list_hg_schemas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exclusion behavior ('excluding system schemas'), which is valuable context beyond basic listing. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or return format details that would be helpful for a read operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all schemas') and immediately adds qualifying information ('in the current Hologres database, excluding system schemas'). Every word serves a clear purpose with zero redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what it does and what it excludes. However, it lacks details about return format, potential limitations, or how results are structured, which would be valuable for an agent invoking this tool.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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 specific action ('List all schemas') and resource ('in the current Hologres database'), with explicit scope clarification ('excluding system schemas'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_hg_tables_in_a_schema' by focusing on schemas rather than tables.

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 context ('current Hologres database') and provides exclusion guidance ('excluding system schemas'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like executing SQL queries directly. No misleading guidance is present.

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