db.databases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently indicates a read-only listing operation ('List') and mentions the default alias, but it does not disclose potential details like whether the output includes connection strings, sorting order, or how the default is highlighted. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is an exemplary model of efficient communication.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, simple read-only listing), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does (list aliases) and the special aspect (default alias), which is all a user needs to know for invocation and interpretation.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately adds context about what will be listed (aliases and default), which is useful beyond the empty schema.

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' and a distinct resource 'configured database aliases', and adds the important nuance of 'currently selected default alias'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like db.schema or db.query, which operate on database structures and data.

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: to see available database aliases and the default one, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or related tools. The usage context is clear but not elaborated.

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