superset_database_schemas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List schemas') but does not mention potential side effects, permissions, pagination, or error conditions. The phrase 'available in a database' adds minimal behavioral context, but overall the description lacks transparency about the tool's behavior beyond the obvious.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a usage hint, and a parameter definition. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant text or fluff.

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 that this is a simple list operation with an output schema present, the description provides all essential information: what it lists, why to use it, and how to supply the parameter. It does not cover edge cases like unsupported databases, but for the described scope it is sufficiently complete.

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 only indicates database_id as an integer with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description compensates fully by documenting 'database_id: Database connection ID (from database_list)', which explains what the parameter is and explicitly tells the agent how to obtain it from a sibling tool. This is excellent semantic enrichment.

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 opens with 'List schemas available in a database', which is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly identifies the operation. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like superset_database_catalogs and superset_database_tables by focusing on schemas.

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 sentence 'Useful for selecting a schema before querying tables or creating a dataset' provides clear context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or explain when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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