list_databases

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of conveying behavior. It clearly signals a read-only listing operation limited to databases 'the user can access.' It does not mention pagination, failure modes, or what happens when access is missing, but for a simple no-argument list tool the core behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single sentence that states the action, the restriction, and the output shape. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return elements (dbId, dbType) and the access scope. It does not explicitly note any dependency on login or how the data connects to follow-on tools, but these are minor gaps in a simple command.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning left to add. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing needs clarification.

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 names an exact operation ('List') on a specific resource ('database servers the user can access') and enumerates the returned fields (dbId, dbType). This cleanly sets it apart from sibling tools like get_schemas and get_tables, whose names indicate different resources.

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 the tool is for enumerating accessible databases initially, and the sibling names suggest the subsequent steps. However, it never explicitly says 'use this before get_schemas/get_tables' or when not to use it, so the routing logic is only inferred.

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