list_schemas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description does not add behavioral context such as whether results are paginated despite the pagination parameters, what 'all' means given a default per_page of 20, or what the response shape contains.

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 highly concise and front-loaded with the action word, with no wasted words. However, it is slightly too terse to be fully self-sufficient because it omits parameter and pagination context.

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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves an agent uncertain about pagination behavior, valid sort values, and response contents. The annotations cover safety but not invocation details, so the tool definition is not complete enough for correct advanced usage.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining parameters. While 'page' and 'per_page' are somewhat self-explanatory, valid values for 'sort_by' and 'sort_order' are undocumented, and the interaction between 'all' and pagination is not clarified.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('saved extraction schemas'), making the operation unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_schema, create_schema, update_schema, and delete_schema.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_schema or list_configs. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the word 'List'.

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