List PostgreSQL application databases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing about result scoping (per-cluster vs. per-namespace), pagination, or whether the default namespace is included — context the annotations cannot supply.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — the sentence duplicates the title and therefore earns no space at all.

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 two-parameter tool with zero schema prose and no output schema, an agent needs at minimum the meaning of 'cluster', the effect of omitting 'namespace', and the shape of the returned list. None of that is present, leaving the definition inadequate for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%: the required 'cluster' parameter has only a regex pattern and no prose, and 'namespace' relies on a $defs entry the description never references. The description does not explain what a cluster identifier looks like, where to obtain it, or what happens when namespace is omitted, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the retrieval counterpart postgres_database_get, and no statement about whether namespace is required to scope results. An agent must guess the relationship to sibling listing tools like postgres_bindings_list and postgres_roles_list.

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