list_schemas

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; 'List' plus 'non-system' conveys a read-only, filtered operation and excludes system schemas, which is useful context. However, nothing is said about pagination, volume, or permissions, so the disclosure is thin for a no-annotation tool.

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?

One tightly scoped sentence with no filler, and the key qualifiers (non-system, connection-scoped) are front-loaded. It could only be improved by adding routing guidance.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema covering return values, the description is essentially complete. Only sibling routing and pagination hints are 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% and the single connection_id parameter is documented with a pointer to list_connections. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so 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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (schemas) plus scope qualifiers (non-system, this connection's database). It distinguishes itself from list_databases and list_tables by naming the schema resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with search_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?

Usage is only implied by the tool hierarchy (connection → database → schemas → tables); there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_schema or describe_table. No when-not conditions are given.

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