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. 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state this or mention any permission requirements or return characteristics. For a trivial read operation, this is adequate but not enriched.

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, highly efficient sentence with zero filler. Every word conveys meaning. For a tool this simple, additional structure would be unnecessary.

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 the tool's minimal complexity, zero parameters, and existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by adding a note about the context (e.g., schemas within the current catalog/database) or clarifying if all schemas includes system schemas, but these are minor gaps. Overall, it is sufficient for the intended use.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially, as there is nothing to describe). The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is appropriate. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and there is no deficiency to lower the score.

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 'List all schemas' is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tables or list_databases by naming the exact resource type (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 implied usage is clear: use this tool when you need to retrieve available schemas. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The simplicity of the tool makes the lack of guidance less detrimental, but it remains implied rather than explicit.

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