list_databases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output (returns database id, name, type) and implies a read-only list operation, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether any side effects occur, whether authentication is required, or any other behavioral traits beyond listing.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every clause earns its place: the action, the workspace scope, the return fields, and a usage tip. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the workspace scope, the return fields, and even provides a default parameter value. No additional information is necessary for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage, with the parameter description already explaining 'workspace_id' and default value. The tool description repeats this hint ('Use workspace_id=1 for the default workspace') without adding new meaning, so it does not elevate beyond the schema baseline.

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') and the resource ('all databases (applications)'), and scopes it to a workspace. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables and list_fields, which target different resource types. Mentioning the return fields (database id, name, type) further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 a concrete usage tip ('Use workspace_id=1 for the default workspace') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tables or list_rows. The differentiation is implied by the name and description, but there are no explicit exclusion or alternative recommendations.

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