mdb_list_schemas

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key operational precondition — this tool depends on session state established by mdb_connect and otherwise needs a config label. It says nothing about required connectivity, error behavior when neither is present, or what the returned schemas look like.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action comes first and the conditional follows. The quoted config_label value slightly duplicates the schema example, but the text is otherwise tight and earns its space.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential decision (session vs config label). Only edge cases — behavior when neither session nor database is supplied, and result shape — are left unstated.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter's meaning and conditional requirement are already fully documented. The description restates the same omit/pass rule, adding no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

"List schemas" is a clear verb+resource, and the resource (schemas) is naturally distinct from siblings like mdb_list_databases and mdb_list_tables, so an agent can route without ambiguity. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with those siblings.

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 gives a conditional for the database parameter (omit when a dynamic session is active, otherwise pass a config label), which is genuinely useful context. But it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over mdb_list_databases or mdb_list_tables, leaving tool selection to inference.

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