get_metabase_databases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a list of database metadata, which is helpful, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides return value information. There's no wasted text, and every sentence earns its place by adding necessary context beyond the tool name.

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?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is adequate for a simple list operation. However, with no annotations and sibling tools that are similar, it could benefit from more context about when to use it or what 'connected databases' entails. It's minimal but not incomplete.

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 the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline. No additional value is required, and it doesn't introduce confusion about parameters.

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's purpose: 'Get a list of connected databases in Metabase.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('connected databases'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_metabase_dashboards' or 'get_metabase_cards', which follow a similar pattern for other resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include other 'get_' operations for different Metabase resources, the agent must infer usage based on naming alone.

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