List Schemas

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

With no annotations, the description itself provides a cost/behavior note: include_comments defaults to True and is cheap because the schema count is small. It does not disclose pagination behavior or ordering, but for a read-only list operation the main behavioral risk is minimal.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence earns its place by explaining a default's cost implication.

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?

The output schema covers return values, but the description is incomplete for an agent deciding between list and search, and it omits pagination parameter semantics. Default no-arg usage is clear, but the full tool surface is not adequately explained.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only addresses include_comments (default and cost); limit and offset are left entirely undocumented.

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 says 'List schema names,' which names a specific action and resource. It is not as explicit as naming the sibling search_schemas, but the verb and object make the primary purpose clear.

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 about when to choose list_schemas over search_schemas or list_tables/list_columns. The only contextual note is about include_comments being cheap, which addresses a parameter rather than tool selection.

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