List databases

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it lists 'all databases for a specific database cluster,' which clarifies that a cluster ID is required. However, it does not disclose details like pagination, ordering, or error handling, which would add further behavioral 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 sentence of 12 words, front-loading the core purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is highly concise and immediately understandable.

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 operation with comprehensive annotations and schema coverage, the description is adequate. It clearly states the input requirement (database cluster ID) and output scope (all databases). However, it could be slightly more complete by mentioning that the response is an array of database objects, but since there is no output schema, it would be helpful. Still, it covers the essential context.

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 input schema has 100% parameter documentation coverage. Both 'include' and 'database' are described in the schema. The description reinforces that 'database' is a cluster ID but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how 'include' affects results or provide examples.

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: 'Get a list of all databases for a specific database cluster.' It uses a specific verb ('get a list') and resource ('databases'), and clarifies the scope ('for a specific database cluster'), distinguishing it from siblings like laravel_cloud_list_database_clusters (lists clusters) and laravel_cloud_get_database (fetches a single database).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. However, the context implies that you should use it when you need a list of databases within a given cluster. No guidance on when not to use it is provided.

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