list_schemas

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and the optional database URL fallback, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what output shape to expect, whether system schemas are included, or what happens on invalid credentials or URLs.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the parameter documentation is direct and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks return-format details, permission or safety notes, and any pointer to sibling tools, leaving some contextual gaps that an agent would have to infer.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by documenting database_url as optional and explaining the fallback to DATABASE_URL from .env. This adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema's bare nullable string with default null.

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 has a specific verb and resource: 'List all schemas in the database.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_objects, which covers objects rather than schemas, and from execute_sql or get_database_info, which serve different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as list_objects or get_database_info. It implies general schema discovery but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different sibling would be more appropriate.

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