list_partition_schemes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description details the returned information, but it does not explicitly state lack of side effects, required permissions, or any limitations. This is acceptable for a simple listing tool but leaves some gaps.

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 is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. It provides essential detail (function and filegroup mapping) without any fluff or 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?

Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and result contents for a zero-parameter operation. It does not explain return format or edge cases, but the simple scope makes this largely sufficient.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters but adds meaningful context about the tool's output scope and contents, which indirectly aids parameter understanding.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('partition schemes') and scope ('current database'). It also specifies the key output aspects ('which partition function each uses and the mapped filegroups'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_partition_functions.

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 implies usage by stating it lists partition schemes in the current database, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Sibling tools are distinguishable by name but no direct comparison is given.

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