list_db

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a safe, read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, permission requirements, or any operational constraints. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic function, which is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and key output details. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick agent reading.

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?

The tool is very simple (no parameters, no output schema), and the description covers the core operation and output. It does not mention return value format or any limitations, but given the low complexity, the description is largely sufficient. Sibling differentiation is minimal, slightly reducing completeness.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description need not explain parameter semantics, and the input schema (empty) confirms that no parameters exist. The description adds no unnecessary param details, which is appropriate.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured MySQL and PostgreSQL databases'), and specifies the output fields (names, types, descriptions). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'query', which likely executes queries rather than enumerating databases.

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 implies usage: use this tool to see available databases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with the sibling 'query' tool. There is no direct guidance on alternative tools, so it falls short of a clear 'when to use vs alternatives' explanation.

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