Databases List Databases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are limited to the current role's accessible databases and explains the naming semantics of quoted_name/quoted_qualified_name, but it says nothing about whether the `pattern` parameter filters results or how large result sets behave.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the second sentence is a rambling aside about output columns that omits the only input parameter. Content priority is misallocated rather than merely verbose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only annotations carry the safety story. However, for a filtered-list tool with one undocumented parameter, the description leaves the agent unsure what `pattern` does and whether it is required for scoped listing.

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 0% and the single `pattern` parameter is an undescribed nullable string, so the description is the only place its meaning could be supplied — yet it is never mentioned. Instead, the description spends its only extra sentence on output column names, which does not compensate for the parameter gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list all available databases) plus a scope qualifier (accessible to the current role), so an agent can distinguish it from mutation siblings like databases_create_database or databases_drop_database. It does not explicitly contrast with databases_describe_database or schemas_list_schemas, but the list-vs-detail distinction is implicit in the verb.

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 never says when to choose this tool versus databases_describe_database, schemas_list_schemas, or governance_list_roles. The role-scoping phrase hints at the result set but offers no usage context, alternatives, or preconditions.

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