ecp_mssql_list_databases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List' which implies read-only, but it does not mention any permissions required, whether the operation is safe/non-destructive, or any potential rate limits or pagination. The description is too minimal to convey necessary behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It has zero fluff and is appropriately sized for such a simple operation.

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 operation with no parameters, the description is somewhat complete, but it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like ecp_mssql_database_sizes or ecp_mssql_list_db_users. An agent might not know if this returns only database names or includes sizes or users. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the output scope, which it does not.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no need for the description to add meaning to parameters that do not exist. The description correctly reflects that no inputs are needed.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('this account's MSSQL databases'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the database engine (MSSQL) and the operation (list). However, it does not explicitly mention whether it returns just names or additional metadata, and it could be more explicit about the scope ('this account' is a bit ambiguous but acceptable).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to choose this over ecp_mssql_database_sizes, ecp_mssql_list_db_users, or similar list tools for other engines. There are no exclusions or contextual cues, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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