apidog_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. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm that it makes no changes, nor does it mention authentication needs, rate limits, or system effects. It adds output field details but not behavioral traits beyond the name.

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 all component schemas...' with no wasted words. Every phrase adds useful context, and it is appropriately compact for a simple tool.

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 with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states the purpose and the key return fields (types, property counts, referencing endpoints). While it lacks explicit safety guarantees, the simplicity of the tool and the clarity of purpose justify a high score.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by including 'in an Apidog module' which connects to the required 'module' parameter, but it does not elaborate on 'project' or provide syntax details beyond the schema.

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 starts with an explicit verb 'List' and clearly specifies the resource ('all component schemas') and scope ('in an Apidog module'). It also lists concrete output details (types, property counts, referencing endpoints), making it distinct from siblings like apidog_get_schema or apidog_modules.

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 implies usage for retrieving an overview of schemas within a module, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over options like apidog_get_schema (for a single schema) or apidog_list (for generic listing). No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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