Базы данных проекта

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

Annotations already indicate openWorldHint=true (likely paginated or returns list) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotation. It doesn't mention if it returns cluster-level or instance-level DBs, or whether the list is paginated, but with annotations covering safety and open-world nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single sentence, concise and front-loaded: verb 'List', object 'managed DBs', scope 'in the specified project'. Zero waste; every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (1 required param) and the schema fully describes the parameter. With no output schema and minimal annotations, a one-line description is arguably sufficient for a list operation. However, it would benefit from clarifying the exact response type (database clusters vs. instances) given the sibling list_database_clusters and list_database_instances. Still, given the low complexity, it is adequately complete.

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 100% (project_id has clear description 'REQUIRED FIELD - project ID'). The description adds the term 'managed databases' and 'in the specified project' but doesn't add deeper parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct because the schema carries the parameter 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 'List managed databases in the specified project' clearly states the action (list) and resource (managed databases) with a project scope. It differentiates from siblings like list_all_project_databases (which lists across projects) and list_database_clusters/instances, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 when to use: when you need the managed DBs of a specific project. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative mention, but the 'specified project' scoping and sibling tool 'list_all_project_databases' (all projects) provide context. However, no explicit guidance on prerequisites or distinction from list_database_clusters/instances.

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