tables_db_list

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. While it mentions filtering via search, it doesn't describe key behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized with two clear sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds filtering capability. It's front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (listing operation with filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at filtering but misses details on output format, pagination, and error handling. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context would help distinguish it better.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('queries' and 'search') with descriptions and constraints. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the 'search parameter' but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('list of all databases from the current Appwrite project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a listing operation rather than creation, deletion, or other database operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like 'tables_db_list_tables' or 'tables_db_list_columns' beyond 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 provides some usage context by mentioning the 'search parameter to filter your results,' which implies when to use this tool for filtered retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus other list tools (e.g., 'tables_db_list_tables') or when not to use it (e.g., for single database retrieval with 'tables_db_get'). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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