list_schemas

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the cost ('cheap') and default behavior of include_comments. Could add more about permissions or result limits, but sufficient for a simple list operation.

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?

Extremely concise with no wasted words. Two sentences, first captures purpose, second adds valuable default/cost context. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 an output schema exists, return values are covered. However, incomplete parameter documentation (limit/offset) leaves a gap. The tool is simple, so not critical, but should explain pagination parameters.

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 description must compensate. It only addresses 'include_comments' (default, cheap). 'limit' and 'offset' are not mentioned at all, leaving the agent to guess their purpose.

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?

Clearly states 'List schema names', a specific verb and resource. Differentiates from siblings like search_schemas by focusing on listing all names. Also provides nuance about the cost of include_comments.

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?

Implies usage for listing all schema names, and mentions include_comments is cheap, but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus search_schemas or list_tables. No when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned.

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