Все БД аккаунта (по проектам)

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

Annotations are sparse and readOnlyHint is false, which could be misleading for a list operation. The description adds the clarifying behavior that the tool merely 'list(s)' DBs, implying a non-mutating read, and adds the detail that results include project_id binding. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or response structure, but the core non-destructive nature is clear from the verb.

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 that front-loads the essential information ('Список всех managed-БД аккаунта'), then adds the relevant scoping detail about project binding. There is no redundant or filler content, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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?

Given the low complexity (0 params, simple list) and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but leaves ambiguity about whether 'managed-БД' includes both clusters and instances, and what fields are returned beyond project_id. It does not explicitly describe the output structure, which an agent would need to know for downstream processing.

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 0 parameters, so the description's mention of project_id (as a result binding, not an input) adds meaning beyond the empty schema. It correctly implies no input is needed, earning the baseline score of 4 for no-parameter tools.

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 'Список' (list) and a clear resource 'все managed-БД аккаунта' (all managed DBs of the account) with an explicit scoping detail 'с привязкой к проекту (project_id)'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_project_databases, which presumably lists databases for a single project, making the account-wide scope unambiguous.

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 implies through 'все ... аккаунта' that this is the account-wide listing tool, contrasting with project-scoped siblings like list_project_databases. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool or mention alternatives, exclusions, or project-specific filtering options, leaving the usage context only implicit.

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