ssh_db_list

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: it is read-only, does not modify anything, it filters out common system databases, and it is safe to call repeatedly. It also clarifies return content (items and count). This fully compensates for the absence of annotations.

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 concise, consisting of three short sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every sentence adds essential information: purpose, conditional behavior, supported engines, return format, and safety note. No wasted words.

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 output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns (items and count), the conditions affecting output, and its safe nature. It could mention potential errors or connection details, but the provided context is sufficient for an experienced agent.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value by explaining the conditional behavior of the 'database' parameter (listing tables/collections vs databases) and noting that system databases are filtered. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions, which already cover the basic meaning.

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 lists database objects (databases or tables/collections) on a remote server without modification. It specifies conditional behavior based on the database parameter and explicitly names supported engines (mysql, postgresql, mongodb), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ssh_db_query or ssh_db_dump.

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 explains when to list databases vs tables/collections and emphasizes it is read-only and safe to repeat. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other tasks, though the context provided implies its appropriate use case.

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