list_schemas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that local databases return no schemas and that result naming differs by engine, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or return shape.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and immediately follows with the engine-specific convention and the empty-result case. No filler.

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, annotation-free read tool with a single documented parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the key nuances (engine-dependent naming, empty case for local DBs). It is nearly complete, lacking only error/permission behavior.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is well documented as coming from list_databases. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining the '<db>' vs '<db>.<schema>' input convention depending on the connection type.

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 (List) and resource (schemas inside a database), and the format hints ('<db>' vs '<db>.<schema>') clarify what a schema means per engine. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_tables or list_databases, but the resource is 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?

Usage is only implied through the naming-format parenthetical and the 'A local database has none' note. There is no explicit when-to-use vs list_databases/list_tables guidance, nor any statement about prerequisites beyond the required 'database' parameter.

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