list_schemas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the default system-schema exclusion, the optional inclusion of pg_catalog/information_schema, and the returned payload (object counts and comments). It does not explicitly state read-only semantics or any permission constraints, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose and default behavior first, then usage scenario, then the include_system caveat. Slightly dense for a two-parameter list tool, but each clause (defaults, usage order, system-schema caveat) carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (object counts, comments) and the default filtering behavior. Near-complete for such a simple tool; only explicit read-only confirmation is absent.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description reinforces include_system's default and motivation but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema itself.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list schemas in GaussDB'), plus what each entry contains (object counts and comments) and the default exclusion of system schemas. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_tables, which it explicitly routes to.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('the first step in exploring the database'), the follow-up action ('then use list_tables to view tables'), and a narrow condition for the include_system alternative ('generally only when troubleshooting system objects'). No inference required.

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