list_schemas

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what it lists, but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, what precisely qualifies as 'non-system', whether an active connection is required, or what the return format will be. The agent is left to infer these operational details.

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 leads with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place; no filler or unnecessary clauses. It is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter and a straightforward function.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely sufficient. It states the purpose clearly. However, it could more explicitly note that it returns a list of schema names or that the operation is read-only, which would complete the context for an agent without additional hints.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'name' as 'Connection name or id' (100% coverage). The tool description adds nothing beyond this—it does not elaborate on parameter usage, constraints, or typical values. Since schema coverage is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('non-system schemas') with a qualifier ('on a DBeaver connection'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_connections (lists connections) and list_tables (lists tables). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 one needs to see available schemas on a connection, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions (e.g., 'for system schemas, use X'). The phrase 'non-system schemas' hints at a filtering behavior but provides no guidance on when this is the right choice.

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