peaka_list_schemas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: the need to resolve projectId via peaka_list_projects and the 'all available' scoping. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or potential error behavior, which would be more informative for a simple listing 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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second earns its place by providing a concrete workflow instruction. The description is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is low complexity and annotations cover safety, but the description is incomplete in one key respect: it explains how to resolve projectId but not catalogId. An agent that does not already have catalogId has no guidance to call peaka_list_catalogs. With no output schema, a mention of the return shape would also help, though the name makes it obvious.

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 only 50%: projectId has a description, but catalogId has none. The description adds meaning for projectId by instructing the agent to obtain it via peaka_list_projects and user confirmation, and implies catalogId is the identifier of the 'given catalog'. Yet it does not explain how to discover catalogId (e.g., via peaka_list_catalogs) or its expected format, leaving a gap.

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 states a specific action ('List'), a clear resource ('all available schemas'), and the scope ('for a given catalog in the Peaka project'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like peaka_list_catalogs, peaka_list_tables, and peaka_list_columns, which operate at different levels of the metadata hierarchy.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need schemas for a catalog. It also includes an explicit prerequisite workflow—if projectId is unknown, call peaka_list_projects first and confirm the project with the user. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like peaka_list_tables or peaka_list_catalogs, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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