infomaniak_list_databases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds detail about disk usage and running operations, which helps set expectations beyond the schema, but no additional behavioral traits like permissions or pagination are mentioned.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the action, scope, and extra output details.

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 one-parameter list operation with an output schema, the description fully covers the purpose and scope. The presence of an output schema means return values are already documented, so no additional detail 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?

The single parameter hosting_id is self-descriptive by name, and the description's phrase 'attached to a web hosting' clarifies its role. With 0% schema coverage, this context compensates well, though it does not explicitly state that hosting_id is the identifier for the web hosting.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every MariaDB database attached to a web hosting'), clearly distinguishing it from tools like get_database. It also adds useful context about disk usage and running operations.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to enumerate all databases under a given hosting_id. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is self-evident from the wording.

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