list_schemas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose read-only status and the default exclusion of system schemas, which is genuinely useful. However, it omits anything about permissions, result size/pagination, or ordering of the returned schemas.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. Every clause adds information (scope, default behavior, safety).

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 zero-required-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it does, its default filtering, and its safety profile. A brief note on the returned fields would make it fully complete.

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%, so both parameters are already documented by the schema; baseline is 3. The description's 'excludes system schemas by default' reinforces the include_system parameter, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema text.

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 schemas in the database') in the first sentence, which clearly separates it from siblings like list_tables and list_environments. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the resource distinction 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?

Gives a default-behavior cue ('Excludes system schemas by default'), which implies the common case, but never says when to choose this over list_tables or describe_table, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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