db_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 does disclose one important behavior — the distinction between the sticky-session profile and the one-shot profile override — but it says nothing about the return shape, error behavior when no profile is available, or the read-only nature of the call beyond what the name implies.

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?

A single sentence with the core action front-loaded ('List databases') followed by the scoping qualifier and optional variant. No filler, no redundancy, and the structure does everything needed.

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 1-parameter, 0-required tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. The only meaningful gap is that, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent must assume the return format is a list of database names — but that is easily inferable from the tool name.

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 100%, so the parameter is already fully documented in the schema (env-var fallbacks, 'default' value, sticky session behavior). The description adds marginal value by labeling the profile argument as 'one-shot', but does not add meaning beyond—the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination ('List databases') and a precise scope qualifier ('on the active profile server'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling enumeration tools db_list_schemas and db_list_tables. An agent can immediately grasp both what it does and that it operates at a different hierarchy level than its siblings.

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?

Usage context is implied via 'active profile' pointing back to db_set_profile's sticky session and the optional one-shot profile branch, so an agent can infer when this applies. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives, when a profile is necessary, or no exclusion criteria.

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