fb_list_databases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuine context — reads from a global catalog or local file, resolves the active project, and signals when user confirmation may be required for multi-database projects — but says nothing about whether the call mutates state, permission needs, or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and source locations, then the secondary behavior about confirmation. No filler, though the second sentence is slightly roundabout in phrasing.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the return concept (list of configured databases, which belong to the active project, and a confirmation flag). The unresolved parameter documentation is the main gap.

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 0% and the single parameter (project_filter) is never mentioned in the description. The passing reference to 'projeto ativo' hints at project scoping but does not explain what project_filter accepts or how it interacts with the active project, so the parameter remains effectively undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista todos os bancos de dados Firebird') and names the configuration sources (~/.firebird-mcp.json or local file), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like fb_use_database or fb_create_config, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a discovery/context-checking role ('identificando os bancos correspondentes ao projeto ativo') but never states when to call this versus fb_create_config, fb_use_database, or fb_configure_database. No prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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