list_schemas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about whether listing is read-only (implied), what permissions are required, how connectionName affects results, or what the response contains. A single word 'disponíveis' is the only added context.

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 short sentence with zero waste and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate — the agent can call it. But with no annotations and no guidance on the listing scope or return format, it stops at the minimum viable level.

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 100%, so both parameters (includeSystem, connectionName) are already documented in the schema with defaults. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('schemas'), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not differentiate from sibling lifecycle tools like create_schema or drop_schema, but the verb alone makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of the includeSystem or connectionName options, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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