lattice_list_database_instances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists instances and returns fields, but does not confirm it is read-only, mention any side effects, or describe pagination/rate limits. For a list operation, the risk is low, but the description lacks explicit safety guarantees that annotations would ideally provide.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by filter options. No unnecessary words, and the structure is clear and easy to parse.

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?

Given it is a list tool with good schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of returned fields and filter options. It omits details like pagination (offset/limit) and ordering, but these are covered in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering by worker, engine, or status, which maps to parameters worker_id, engine, and status, but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format, constraints, or examples).

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 explicitly states the action 'List' and the resource 'managed database instances', and enumerates the key fields returned (engine, version, status, worker, health). It also specifies filter options, making the tool's purpose distinct from sibling tools like get_database_instance which retrieves a single instance.

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 clear context on how to use the tool (listing with filters by worker, engine, or status). However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare to alternative tools like get_database_instance for single-instance retrieval, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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