get-schemas-in-catalogs

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' weakly implies a read, but it never states read-only safety, what happens with an invalid or empty catalog name, whether missing catalogs are skipped or error, or whether results are paginated. Those are real behavioral questions for a zero-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?

The tool's purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and there is no filler. The trailing 'Args:' block is docstring residue that duplicates the schema, but it is short and does not obscure the main statement.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read tool and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Still, with no annotations and no parameter descriptions anywhere, the definition leaves the agent without behavioral or format guidance it cannot get elsewhere.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It restates only that catalog_names is a list of catalog names, adding no meaning about accepted format, whether multi-part or fully qualified names are allowed, or whether an empty list is valid — all beyond what the array-of-strings schema already says.

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: retrieve all available schemas within given catalogs. The scope ('in the given catalogs', 'all available') makes it distinguishable from get-catalogs and get-tables-in-catalogs-schemas, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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: the 'given catalogs' phrasing hints this is a drill-down step after get-catalogs, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must infer the catalog→schema→table hierarchy from the sibling names alone.

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