list_databases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description is a read-only operation (listing databases) with no side effects implied. It identifies that results are scoped to the authenticated user, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose return format, potential pagination, ordering, or error conditions (e.g., unauthenticated, no databases), which would be valuable given no annotations exist.

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, complete sentence with zero wasted words. It states verb, resource, and scope efficiently. There is nothing superfluous and the information density is high for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero-parameter list operation, the description covers the essential semantics. However, given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description could have noted the return structure, whether it includes database URLs, sizes, or just names, and any authentication requirements. For such a simple tool, the description is mostly sufficient but leaves some gaps around what exactly is returned.

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 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no params). The description states the scope ('available to authenticated user'), which adds semantic meaning about what is returned. With zero parameters, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately doesn't need to elaborate further.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with resource ('all databases') and scope ('available to the authenticated user'), and explicitly names the server (ArcadeDB). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_schema or query which operate on database contents rather than the database list itself. A small deduction for not distinguishing from potential 'create database' or 'drop database' siblings, but given the provided siblings, the purpose is clear.

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 description implies this is for enumerating databases, useful before connecting to or selecting one. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor mention prerequisites (e.g., needing authentication first). There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions. It provides minimal but adequate context for the primary use case, though it lacks explicit guidance.

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