list_schema_ids

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'get a list' but doesn't disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if no schema IDs exist. The tool's behavior is implied but not explicit.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is necessary and efficient.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It explains the tool's output vaguely ('list of all available schema IDs') but doesn't clarify what 'available' means, response format, or how to interpret the IDs. It's adequate for a simple list but lacks completeness.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description adds no parameter info, but baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no additional detail is needed.

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 tool returns a list of all available schema IDs. The verb 'Get' and resource 'list of all available schema IDs' are specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_schema' which might return a specific schema, but the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives or prerequisites, which is important given many schema and document-related sibling tools exist.

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