list_schemas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation with a specific filter, implying no destructive side effects. It does not disclose potential performance or authentication requirements, but for a simple list, this is adequate.

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 a single sentence that conveys all necessary information without any redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficiently uses words to define the tool's scope.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what is listed (schemas with at least one table), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 input schema has no parameters, so description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not mislead or contradict the 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 (schemas that have at least one table), making it easy for an agent to understand what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_tables by focusing on schemas.

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 a clear context by specifying the condition 'that have at least one table', which helps the agent decide when to use this tool (e.g., to find non-empty schemas). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools, the purpose is unambiguous and sufficient for a zero-parameter tool.

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