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 the meaningful scoping fact that results are limited to what the configured database principal can see, which is a genuine behavioral trait beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about ordering or volume.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word (list, SQL schemas, visible to the configured principal) earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the lone parameter is undocumented and there is no routing to alternative listing tools, so the definition is adequate but not fully complete for a multi-sibling catalog.

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 single required parameter 'database' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and it does not. It never clarifies whether 'database' is a name, fully qualified identifier, or connection target, leaving the lone parameter undocumented across both structured and prose fields.

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 and resource (list SQL schemas) with a scope qualifier (visible to the configured database principal). It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from related siblings like list_databases or list_tables, which an agent might reach for instead.

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 no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling enumeration tools (list_databases, list_tables, describe_table). The agent gets no routing guidance to distinguish this from adjacent listing tools.

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