list_schemas

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

The description implies a read-only operation but does not disclose behaviors such as whether system schemas are included by default or how the database_name parameter affects results. With no annotations, this partial transparency leaves gaps for the agent.

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, grammatically complete sentence with no redundant words. It is concise and easy to parse, though it sacrifices helpful detail for brevity.

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 two parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify parameter defaults, whether system schemas are included, or the return format, leaving significant ambiguity for a tool with schema coverage at 0%.

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 explain either parameter (database_name or includeSystemSchemas). The mention of 'database' is generic and does not convey semantics, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'List all schemas in the database' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_objects and list_indexes by naming the exact resource type.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description is purely functional and does not provide context for decision-making.

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