get_schemas

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool is list-oriented and that behavior depends on the server type, but it does not mention return format, pagination, permissions, or error conditions. For a simple read-only list operation this is adequate, if 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?

The entire description is one sentence with no filler, leading with the core action and then the one prerequisite an agent needs. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it maximally efficient for a single-parameter 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 tool with a single parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose, the precondition for obtaining dbId, and what the return will roughly be (a list of schema/database names). It could be slightly more explicit about the exact return structure, but nothing essential is missing.

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% for the single dbId parameter, with the schema already documenting 'Database server id from list_databases.' The description repeats this dependency almost verbatim, adding no meaningful semantic addition beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

The description names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('schemas' or 'databases') and clarifies the type-dependent behavior (MySQL vs MongoDB). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_tables and list_databases without needing to inspect the schema.

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 provides clear context by stating the prerequisite: 'Use list_databases first to get dbId.' This tells the agent the preceding step needed to invoke the tool correctly. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when this tool should not be used, so it stops one step short of a 5.

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