list_schemas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the responsibility. It correctly conveys that the tool lists schemas and that filtering is optional, which is adequate for a simple read-only tool, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or failure behavior.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource within the instance, adds the meaningful 'company databases' clarification, and closes with the optional filter. No wasted 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description plus the schema provide most of what an agent needs to invoke correctly. A short note on the expected return type would be slight improvement, but the intent is clear.

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?

The schema already documents 'pattern' with a clear description and says schema coverage every parameter, so the description Lisa does not need to add. It only repeats the idea of an optional pattern filter without adding new semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('esquemas (company databases de SAP B1) de la instancia HANA'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The parenthetical clarification of what the schemas represent adds useful context without confusing the reader.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to list schemas with an optional name-pattern filter. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_tables, but the resource difference (schemas vs tables) makes the usage evident.

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