list_databases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only enumeration with no parameters, but does not state that it is side-effect-free, anonymous, or whether it returns all databases or a filtered subset. For a trivial listing this is acceptable, but the safety profile is only inferred from 'Lista'.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the SQL hint compactly reinforcing meaning. No waste.

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, low-complexity listing the definition is nearly sufficient, but with no annotations and no output schema it never describes what the return looks like (e.g., a list of database names). It is adequate rather than complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to compensate for. It adds nothing beyond the schema, but nothing is needed.

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 gives a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('las bases de datos disponibles'), and the parenthetical SQL equivalent (SHOW DATABASES) confirms the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_tables, though the resource noun makes the distinction largely self-evident.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Usage is only implied by the natural pairing of the name with the SQL hint; nothing tells the agent how this routes versus list_tables or describe_table.

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