list_databases

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful context by stating the result scope (only databases the current account can connect to) and what is returned (default DB, template flag, comments).

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the resource and scope and appends the return fields; no filler or redundancy.

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 no-output-schema, single-parameter read tool, the description conveys scope, constraints, and the returned fields adequately. Output format details (ordering, pagination) are absent but not critical here.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the connection argument and its prohibition on addresses/credentials. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource (列出...数据库) and scopes it precisely to databases reachable by the current account under a DBeaver PostgreSQL connection. The resource noun inherently separates it from siblings like list_schemas, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 scope (per-connection, current-account databases) implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as list_schemas or list_dbeaver_connections.

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