archery_list_databases

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists databases (a read operation), but it does not explain what happens when 'instance' is null, what the 'site' parameter controls, or any side effects. The behavioral profile is severely under-documented.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. Important information is missing, so the brevity sacrifices completeness. The sentence is clear and front-loaded with the purpose, but it does not earn its place by covering necessary details.

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?

With no parameter explanations, no usage guidance, and no behavioral details beyond the listing action, the description is incomplete for practical use. The presence of an output schema helps document return values, but the input side remains opaque. Given the tool's complexity (simple but with two unexplained parameters), more context is needed.

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 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter explanations. The description also fails to explain the 'site' and 'instance' parameters, their allowed values, or how they affect the listing. With no parameter semantics anywhere, the agent cannot correctly invoke the tool without external knowledge.

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 lists databases under an instance and provides the SQL equivalent 'SHOW DATABASES'. This is a specific verb (list) and resource (databases), and it naturally distinguishes from siblings like archery_list_instances (list instances) and archery_list_columns (list columns).

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like archery_list_instances or archery_query, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an instance identifier first) or typical workflow context.

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