列出可访问的数据库模式

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable implementation details beyond annotations: it queries ALL_USERS and falls back to SYSOBJECTS with TYPE$='SCH' if permissions are insufficient. This gives the agent useful expectations about behavior and failure modes.

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?

Three concise sentences deliver action, usage context, and fallback behavior without redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool, the description covers purpose, use cases, data source, and permission fallback. An output schema exists, and annotations are rich, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 only parameter, response_format, is fully described in the schema with enum values and a clear description. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds no additional parameter meaning, matching 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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: list all schemas/users accessible to the current connection user. It also names concrete invocation scenarios, distinguishing it from sibling table-oriented tools like dm_list_tables.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: when unsure which schema a table belongs to, or when confirming available business schemas. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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