List Schemas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: project mode returns groups of structurally identical schemas rather than the full list, specId is ignored in that mode, and usage counts are included. This is valuable context about output shape and parameter handling.

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 description is compact and well organized: the main behavior comes first, optional behavior second, and the project-scope behavioral change is explained in a clearly marked clause. The final prerequisite sentence adds essential context without redundancy.

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?

Given the read-only annotation, full parameter schema coverage, and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the important decisions an agent must make: choosing scope, understanding the different return shape, knowing specId is ignored in project mode, and knowing a project context is required. Nothing critical is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by explaining what usage counts represent ('how many endpoints reference each schema') and clarifying that specId is ignored in project scope. It does not add detail for versionId, but the schema already documents that parameter adequately.

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 precise action and resource: 'List all schemas of an API specification.' It clearly differentiates the default spec scope from the project scope, where the semantics change to grouping structurally identical schemas. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_shared_schemas without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool and how the project scope changes behavior: 'Set scope to project to look across every spec in the project instead.' It also notes the project-context prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a full 5.

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