list_databases

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

The description includes '[READ]' to indicate a read-only operation, and specifies the output includes table count and data/index sizes sorted largest first. However, without annotations, it does not disclose permission requirements, whether system schemas are excluded, or potential performance implications, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence and allocating a short line for the parameter explanation. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, output contents, ordering, and parameter semantics. Given its simplicity, it is sufficiently complete, though it could mention what 'user schemas' excludes (e.g., system schemas), but that is a minor gap.

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 schema provides only the name and type for the 'target' parameter with zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that target refers to a configured target name and omitting it uses the default, providing essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool lists user schemas with table count and data/index size, ordered largest first. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like table_sizes and list_transactions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, without mentioning exclusions or related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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