list_databases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing databases but fails to describe what 'available' means (e.g., accessible vs. all), potential permissions required, rate limits, or output structure. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a database server.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of database operations and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, authentication needs, or result format details, which are crucial for an AI agent to use this tool effectively in context with its siblings.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3 as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('all databases available on a database server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_tables' or 'describe_table' beyond the resource type, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tables' or 'describe_table', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a valid connection. It simply states what the tool does without context for selection.

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