list_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'List databases' gives no information about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's destructive, what format the output takes, or any rate limits. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 at just two words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded (there's only one phrase), it doesn't earn its place by providing sufficient value.

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 tool with one required parameter (0% schema coverage), no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling listing tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameter, what systems it interacts with, or how it differs from other listing operations. The description fails to provide the context needed for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description provides zero information about the single required parameter 'type'. With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter information in the description, the agent has no semantic understanding of what the parameter means or how to use it. The description doesn't even acknowledge that parameters exist, let alone explain their purpose.

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 'List databases' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what kind of databases, from what system, or with what scope. While it includes a verb ('List') and resource ('databases'), it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from potential sibling tools or understand its exact function.

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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison to sibling tools like 'list_composes' or 'list_containers'. There's no indication of when this tool is appropriate versus other listing tools available on the server.

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