List Databases

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one behavioral trait beyond structured data — only "live" instances are returned — and enumerates the response fields, which is valuable given there is no output schema. But it says nothing about ordering, pagination, permissions, or what "current" or "headless" mean.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the return fields appended as a clarifying parenthetical. No filler, though the inline brace-list is slightly cryptic and unpunctuated.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the field enumeration is a real assist. However, unexplained fields such as "current" and the absence of any guidance on how to consume the returned instance_id leave the definition only adequate.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no semantics to convey; baseline 4 applies. The description instead characterizes the (empty) input implicitly by describing only the output payload.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("List all live IDA databases/instances") that clearly distinguishes it from mutating siblings like open_database, close_database, and select_database. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the discovery step that yields the instance_id needed by select_database/close_database. The word "live" is the only scoping hint.

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