list_databases

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. '列出' implies a read-only operation, which is accurate. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, required permissions, or rate limits, though for a simple list tool these are less critical.

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 clear sentence that fully describes the tool's function without any unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It states exactly what the tool returns: a list of database connection names configured in the MCP service.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so description naturally adds no parameter details. Schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). Baseline for 0 params is 4; no further elaboration needed.

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?

Description uses specific verb '列出' (list) and resource '所有資料庫連線名稱' (all database connection names). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_tables (which lists tables within a database) and query_sql (which runs queries).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, its simplicity makes the usage context clear: use to enumerate available databases before querying tables or running SQL. Sibling names imply differentiation but no direct comparison.

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