list_schemas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping detail that all schemas are returned, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as failure modes or prerequisites. This is minimally sufficient given the annotation.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes to understanding.

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?

This is a simple read-only list operation with one optional parameter, an output schema, and a safety annotation. The description plus the structured schema fully cover what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the parameter's description already explains optionality, default behavior, and the prerequisite to call list_databases first. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List all schemas'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_databases and list_objects. The word 'all' sets a clear scoping expectation.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: use when you need the list of schemas. However, the description does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The parameter schema does instruct calling list_databases first when multiple databases are configured, which provides indirect usage guidance, but the tool description itself lacks this.

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