List webget database servers

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the snapshot-vs-live behavior: it normally uses a bundled snapshot, refresh re-scrapes the live list and is slower, and the snapshot starts empty after fresh install. This meaningfully clarifies observable behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states what the tool lists, the second connects the output to the sibling tool, and the third explains the refresh behavior with its practical caveat. Information is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 read-only listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it conveys the return value (database server names), how to use that return value downstream, and the full semantics of the refresh parameter. No critical calling detail is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by explaining the refresh parameter's tradeoffs and necessity, and by showing how the returned name maps to the database argument of webget_run_query. The filter parameter is left to the schema, which already documents it clearly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists database server names available in Increff Webget's SQL Query Editor, tied to a concrete URL dropdown. It also distinguishes its role from the sibling webget_run_query by explaining that its output feeds the database argument to that tool.

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?

It gives clear context: the tool is the way to discover server names before calling webget_run_query. It also provides conditional guidance for refresh, explaining when the live re-scrape is necessary (after fresh install, to catch new servers), though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative list tools.

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