databases_list_attributes

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 attributes but does not describe key behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the format of returned data. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence that efficiently states the tool's action. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'List schema attributes') to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 complexity of a list operation with filtering via queries, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination, error handling, or how the 'queries' parameter works in practice. For a tool with three parameters and behavioral unknowns, more context is needed.

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 input schema fully documents the parameters (database_id, collection_id, queries). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the purpose of 'queries' or how they filter attributes. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 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 states the action ('List') and target ('attributes in the collection'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'attributes' refer to (e.g., database schema attributes like fields or properties) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'databases_list_collections' or 'databases_list_documents', making it somewhat vague.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a database and collection ID, or compare it to related tools like 'databases_get_attribute' for retrieving a single attribute. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.

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