list_databases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that only 'accessible' databases are returned, which hints at permission filtering, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential output format, ordering, pagination, or error behavior. Given the lack of annotations, the description under-specifies behavioral traits.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no redundant wording or filler. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple list tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., array of database names or objects) or any sorting. Given the sibling tools context, an agent might reasonably expect a list of names, but the lack of explicit output details slightly hinders completeness.

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 has 100% coverage, with an explicit description for the sole parameter ('Target server name (uses default if omitted)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('all accessible databases'), and the scope ('on the SQL Server instance'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables or list_schemas. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does.

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 usage (when you need a list of databases) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention situations where it should not be used. It offers no exclusions or conditions. The name and purpose make usage fairly obvious, but it falls short of explicit routing.

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