uc_schema_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint, which is minor behavioral context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or the fact that parameters are optional, which would be helpful. With annotations covering readonly, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it lacks structure. It includes a reference to the HTTP endpoint, which may be extraneous. While brevity is good, the description could be front-loaded with more actionable information. It earns a 3 for being short but not well-optimized.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values or pagination behavior. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively without external knowledge.

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%, meaning the input schema properties have no descriptions. The tool description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (e.g., catalog_name, max_results, page_token). The agent has no guidance on their purpose or how to use them, making this a critical gap.

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?

Description clearly states 'List schemas' and references the HTTP GET endpoint, which indicates a read-only list operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like uc_schema_create, uc_schema_delete, uc_schema_get by the verb 'list'. However, it does not specify scope (e.g., listing schemas in a catalog) or what constitutes a schema, leaving some ambiguity.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not tell the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., uc_catalog_list for catalogs or uc_table_list for tables). It lacks context about prerequisites, like needing a catalog name, or when to use pagination.

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