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 behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions required, whether results are paginated, or that the response may contain sensitive credentials when includePassword is set. Only the bare direction of the operation (read) is conveyed.

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 short sentence with no waste, and the scope ('the server's') is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, which is the better failure mode for this dimension.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should describe what comes back (names only? host, username, password?) and how to identify the target server. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess at response shape for a credential-adjacent endpoint.

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 83%, with panel, baseUrl, clientKey, applicationKey, and includePassword all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies when 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the server's databases'), which is enough to separate it from siblings like db_create, db_delete, and db_rotate_password. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, but the read-only list semantics are unambiguous.

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 on when to call this versus db_create/db_delete/db_rotate_password, and no mention of prerequisites such as which server identifier to use or whether the panel must be selected first. The agent must infer all routing from the tool name alone.

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