qradar_list_ariel_databases

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation, the resource, and the output shape ('JSON string containing list of Ariel database names'), which fully characterizes this simple read-only tool. It omits minor details like error handling, but those are low-risk for a zero-parameter listing operation.

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 two sentences with no filler: it states the resource, gives examples, and specifies the return type. The core purpose is front-loaded before the return detail.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It identifies the resource and the returned JSON string of database names, which is everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 empty input schema is fully covered. With no parameters to document, the description need not add parameter details, and the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all available Ariel databases in QRadar,' and gives concrete examples such as events, flows, and simarc. This makes the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other QRadar entities.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tool is named. However, the wording 'list all available Ariel databases' makes the intended use case clear by implication: use it when you need the set of Ariel database names.

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