list_schemas

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes that counts are included, but fails to mention read-only nature, potential performance impact, permissions, or return format. Minimal behavioral context.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is meaningful, with no fluff or 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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it lists and that counts are included. It is nearly complete, though it could mention ordering, pagination, or potential cost for completeness.

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 the schema is empty with 100% coverage. No parameter explanation is needed, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing schema information. This aligns with the baseline for zero-parameter 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 'List all schemas in database with table and view counts' provides a specific action (list), resource (schemas), scope (all in database), and additional output details (counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables or list_stored_procedures.

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 when to use this tool (to get an overview of schemas with counts), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no exclusionary guidance, but the scope is clearly stated.

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