list_databases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool lists only files with .db, .sqlite, or .sqlite3 extensions, which signals a read-only discovery operation. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether the search is recursive, how hidden or unreadable files are handled, and what happens when no databases are found.

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 with no filler, and the core action, resource, scope, and file extensions are all front-loaded. Every part of the sentence 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?

This is a simple tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, so the basic invocation is fully specified. The description is missing a little context around recursive vs. top-level search and how it fits into the sibling tool workflow, but an agent can reasonably invoke it correctly.

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%, so the directory parameter is already fully documented, including its default value. The description reinforces the directory scope but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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'), identifies the resource ('SQLite database files'), names the exact file extensions, and scopes the action to a directory. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like schema, table_info, and query, which operate on databases rather than discover them.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, no stated workflow such as 'use before query', and no explanation of when another tool would be more appropriate. The intended usage as a discovery step is only implied by the tool name and siblings.

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