List databases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds a valuable behavioral guarantee that 'Connection URLs and passwords are never returned', which is not derivable from annotations and directly affects agent expectations about sensitive data. This enriches the transparency beyond the annotation baseline.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned fields, and ends with a security note. Every word adds value; there is no filler or repetition. It is concise and well-structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is listed and what fields are returned, plus a security caveat. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or filtering, but these are unlikely to be needed given the tool's simplicity and the absence of input parameters. The description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters to document, the baseline for parameter semantics is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific details. The description focuses on output fields, which is appropriate given the absence of inputs.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'standalone databases', specifying the exact fields returned (name, uuid, type, status, public exposure, project/environment). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_projects or list_servers by making the database scope explicit, and the qualifier 'standalone' further narrows the resource type.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent would infer usage for listing databases, and the sibling tools are named by resource, making the selection intuitive. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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