archery_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 uses '查询' which implies a read-only operation, and adds that instance ownership is validated by Archery, providing some context. However, it does not describe error handling, pagination, output format, or anything about side effects. It is minimally transparent but not rich.

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 two short clauses, front-loading the core action and adding a validation note. Every word contributes value, with no fluff. It is 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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema present, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks guidance on parameter sourcing and does not clarify what 'readable instance' means in terms of prerequisites or limitations. The description is adequate for a trivial tool but leaves some gaps in context.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description mentions '指定可读实例' (specified readable instance), hinting that the instance_name parameter should refer to a readable instance and that ownership is checked. However, it does not explain where valid values come from (e.g., from archery_list_instances), nor does it provide any format or constraints beyond the schema's title. The semantic addition is minimal.

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 tool's function: query databases in a specified readable instance. It uses a specific verb (查询) and resource (数据库), and specifies the target instance. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like archery_list_instances or archery_list_query_instances, though the focus on databases within an instance makes it reasonably distinct.

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 usage context: only for readable instances, and notes that instance ownership is verified by Archery. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain valid instance names). The context is implied but not fully articulated.

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