Dconf Editor upstream maintainer here.

The dconf command gives you access to the dconf key-value database. This database is empty by default; so, you only see via dconf the settings that have already been edited. And you can only read the name of the key, and its value. That’s all that’s here.

Dconf Editor do not only call this database. It also calls the “GSchema” API, that is part of the GLib (the base library of Gtk and various other libraries). A schema is a file describing keys –it’s what provides a summary, a description, etc. of the keys– and is defined by the applications, and mapped to a path in the dconf database, that is used as backend.

If you want to have access to schemas in a terminal, you should use the gsettings command; I’ll let you read its documentation. But it’s harder to imagine that as a tree of settings, that’s in what Dconf Editor is quite convenient. (Well, I try and hope. :D)

Yes, Dconf Editor should be renamed, for clarity. That’s planned; for when I’ll have the time. And yes, there’s a big need for helping users in using these various abstractions in an optimal way, notably in preferring gsettings over dconf for doing most operations not database-related; I do not have an easy solution here, but the future will find something. :·)

The dconf command gives you access to the dconf key-value database. This database is empty by default; so, you only see via dconf the settings that have already been edited, and you can only read the name of the key, and its value.

Dconf Editor do not only call this database. It also calls the “GSchema” API, that is part of the GLib (the base library of Gtk and various other libraries). 

A schema is a file describing keys –it’s what provides a summary, a description, etc. of the keys– and is defined by the applications, and mapped to a path in the dconf database, that is used as back end.

If you want to have access to schemas in terminal, then you should use the command gsettings. This command will let you read its documentation, but it’s harder to imagine that as a tree of settings, that’s in what Dconf Editor is quite convenient.

Yes, Dconf Editor should be renamed, for clarity purposes. I prefer gsettings over dconf because of its ability of doing multiple operations not related t database.