List Shared Schemas

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates read-only behavior. The description adds that entries carry id and rowVersion, which slightly informs output, but does not detail pagination or other side effects. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, directly conveying the purpose, the scope option, and the output contents without any fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it states the action, resource, scope variants, and what the returned entries include. It lacks only minor details like pagination, which are not critical for a list operation.

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 scope parameter is fully described in both the schema and the description, clarifying the meaning of 'project' and 'org' values. The description reinforces this, adding value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('reusable schemas of the shared library'), distinguishing it from similar tools like list_schemas by emphasizing 'shared' and 'reusable' and noting the returned id and rowVersion.

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 explains the scope parameter with default 'project' versus 'org', giving clear guidance on when to use each. It could have explicitly contrasted with list_schemas but the context is sufficient.

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