List database hosts

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

Adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the credential redaction behavior gated on CALAGOPUS_ALLOW_SECRETS, and the permission requirement (database-hosts.read). With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already declaring the safety profile, the description contributes additional value about secrets handling and auth rather than repeating the annotations.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose, credential-redaction caveat, and permission requirement. Purpose is front-loaded first. Zero filler or redundant wording.

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?

Complete for a filtered, paginated list tool: annotations carry the read-only safety profile, the schema documents all parameters (including the large-record warning on detail), and the description covers purpose, redaction behavior, and auth. A return-format description would be nice but is not critical given no output schema exists and the described fields (type, host/port, state) imply the response shape.

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%, so the schema documents all four parameters (page, detail, search, per_page) with defaults, ranges, and the size warning on detail. The description adds no param-level semantics beyond what the schema provides; it references 'type, public host/port and deployment state' which pertains to output, not inputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb (List) and resource (external database servers the panel hands out user databases on), plus the fields returned: type, public host/port, deployment state. The 'external' qualifier and 'database servers' framing distinguish it from the agent-host sibling (list_database_agent_hosts) and the singular get_database_host, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 'external database servers the panel hands out user databases on' phrasing implies this is for externally-facing hosts versus agent hosts, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use or named alternative is given. The sibling calagopus_list_database_agent_hosts is the natural alternative and is never mentioned.

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