get_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 does this well by revealing that the domain set is not fixed, grows to fit the user, and reflects domains actually used — non-obvious behavior that matters for an agent deciding whether to cache or assume domains. It does not mention return format or explicit read-only status, but the verb 'List' makes the basic behavior clear for a zero-parameter tool.

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 front-loaded. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does, the second explains why the result may vary, and the third gives concrete use cases and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place without repetition 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?

For a simple, zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description provides everything an agent needs: what is returned, why the result is not static, when to call it, when not to call it, and which sibling tools to use instead. There are no significant gaps for correct selection and invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameter surface. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately adds no unnecessary parameter-level detail.

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: it explicitly says the tool will 'List the knowledge domains this user's memory actually uses, and their subdomains.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like search_knowledge and get_context, which retrieve content rather than enumerate the domain vocabulary.

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 explicit guidance on when to call this tool: before filtering a search by domain, before choosing a domain_hint for capture_fact, or when wanting to understand how the user's knowledge is organized. It also explicitly states when it is not needed — rarely needed mid-conversation — and names alternatives that work without it: search_knowledge and get_context.

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