faber_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. It states the action ('List all databases') but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and scope.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of databases. It doesn't explain what information is included in the list, format, or any limitations. For a list operation with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 does not mention any parameters, but the input schema has 100% coverage with one optional parameter ('server') fully documented. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately describes the parameter without needing additional explanation in the description.

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 action ('List all databases') and resource ('on the Faber server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'faber_list_apps' or 'faber_list_domains' by specifying databases, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all list operations. The description avoids tautology by not just repeating the tool name.

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, or exclusions, such as whether it's for administrative tasks or how it differs from other list tools like 'faber_list_apps'. Without such guidance, the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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