list_schemas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context such as the effect of include_inactive, ordering, or result size, but with annotations carrying that burden a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two compact sentences, purpose first. The second sentence is domain education rather than tool mechanics, but it is short and useful for disambiguating 'schema' in this system.

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 simple read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition gives enough to call it correctly. Remaining gaps (pagination, default filtering behavior beyond include_inactive) are minor.

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 100%: agent_id, schema_type (with its enum values), and include_inactive are all documented in the schema. The description adds only conceptual framing of what a schema contains, not parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista todos os schemas de um agente'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_schema or list_agent_tools, so it stops short of the top band.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_schema, update_schema, or the create/toggle/delete schema tools. Usage is only inferable from the name being a plural listing verb, which is the 'no guidance' band.

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