baasix_list_schemas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify data, nor does it mention any access requirements or return-page behavior. The behavior is simple enough that the lack of explicit detail is not fatal.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then mentions the two noteworthy capabilities: search and pagination.

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 low-complexity listing tool, the description plus the fully documented input schema are nearly sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main gap is that there is no output schema and no explicit statement about what the returned paginated result looks like, but this is unlikely to block correct invocation for a simple 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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (page, sort, limit, search), so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only the high-level notion of 'optional search and pagination' but no detail beyond what the schema already documents, so it stays at the baseline.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all available collections/schemas in Baasix'), and mentions optional search and pagination. It does not explicitly name or distinguish sibling tools like baasix_get_schema, but the scope word 'all' makes the listing intent clear.

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 phrase 'Get all available' implies this is the right tool for enumerating schemas or finding schemas via search, and pagination parameters signal handling large result sets. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of a single-schema tool like baasix_get_schema, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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