appwrite_list_databases

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully documents the return structure (ID, name, creation date)弥补了 lack of output schema. However, missing critical behavioral details: pagination behavior, authentication requirements, and what happens when no databases exist.

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?

Two efficient sentences with purpose front-loaded. Minor deduction for '[UNIFIED]' prefix which appears to be metadata leakage rather than user-facing documentation. Otherwise zero waste.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters (including optional filtering), the description is insufficient. While it covers return values, the complete omission of parameter documentation—especially for the required 'site' field—leaves users unable to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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 coverage is 0% with 3 parameters including 1 required ('site'), so description must compensate. It completely fails to explain any parameter semantics—particularly what 'site' refers to (project ID? instance?) or how to format 'queries' and 'search' filters. Critical gap for invocation.

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?

Clear verb ('List') and resource ('databases in the Appwrite project') with explicit mention of returned fields (ID, name, creation date). Slight imprecision: claims to list 'all' databases despite having filter parameters (queries/search), and doesn't distinguish from sibling 'appwrite_get_database'.

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 use this versus 'appwrite_get_database' (single retrieval) or other list operations. No explanation of how to use filtering capabilities or when 'site' parameter is required.

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