List HANA schemas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context about pagination via 'HANA_LIST_DEFAULT_LIMIT / offset', which is not present in the schema and informs the agent about default limits. This complements the annotations rather than repeating them.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'List schemas in the HANA database with optional prefix filter and pagination (HANA_LIST_DEFAULT_LIMIT / offset).' It covers the core action, optional filters, and a pagination detail without any extraneous words.

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 straightforward list operation, the description adequately covers the main functionality, optional parameters, and pagination. An output schema exists to detail return structure, so the description does not need to explain that. A slight gap is the lack of explicit statement about default behavior when no parameters are provided, but this is easily inferred from 'optional' and the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by referencing 'HANA_LIST_DEFAULT_LIMIT', which clarifies that the limit parameter has a server-side default—information not in the schema's field descriptions. It also ties the three parameters together into a coherent feature set (prefix filter and pagination).

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 is highly specific: 'List schemas in the HANA database' clearly identifies the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like hana_list_tables and hana_list_views. It also mentions optional prefix filtering and pagination, adding scope beyond a bare tautology.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool: whenever schema enumeration is needed. While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name competing tools, the sibling names (e.g., hana_list_tables, hana_list_views) make the distinct use case obvious. The context is clear enough without explicit exclusion guidance.

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