neon_list_databases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List all databases,' which implies a read operation but offers no details about pagination, error conditions, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for safe agent usage.

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 extremely short (one sentence), but this brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail. It lacks parameter explanations, return value expectations, and usage context. True conciseness would retain clarity while being informative.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns (e.g., database names, IDs) and highlighting any caveats (e.g., authentication requirements, branch existence). It fails to do so, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance for a three-parameter tool.

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 lists three parameters (api_key, project_id, branch_id) with zero description coverage. The description does not add any meaning to these parameters, such as indicating that project_id and branch_id are required or that api_key is optional. The agent gains no additional insight from the description.

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 'List all databases on a Neon branch' clearly identifies the action (list), the resource (databases), and the scope (on a Neon branch). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like neon_list_branches (lists branches) and neon_list_projects (lists projects), which target 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., neon_list_branches, neon_list_projects). It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer intent from the resource name alone.

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