turso_list_databases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no result count limits, no note that authorization is scoped to the org passed in.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a tool with no output schema.

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 simple, read-only, two-parameter list operation whose annotations fully cover the safety profile, the description is adequate but minimal. It omits anything about the shape or volume of results, which matters somewhat given no output schema exists.

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 100% with both parameters ('org' and 'api_key') documented inline, so the schema carries the load. The description only adds that listing is scoped to an organization, which the schema's 'Organization name or slug' already conveys.

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 ('List all databases') and scopes it to a Turso organization, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as turso_get_database, turso_list_groups, or the similarly named do_list_databases and neon_list_databases, leaving selection ambiguity.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the alternative listing/inspection tools (turso_get_database, do_list_databases, neon_list_databases). The only implied usage is 'you want the list', which is a restatement of the name rather than guidance.

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