list_databases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists files but does not describe how it behaves—e.g., whether it recursively scans subdirectories, handles errors like inaccessible paths, returns file metadata or just names, or has any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates what the tool does, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying file types and location.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose and resource but omits behavioral details and usage context. For a simple listing tool, this might be adequate, but it does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving room for improvement.

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 100% description coverage, documenting the single parameter 'directory' with its type, default, and purpose. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('List') and resource ('SQLite database files (.db, .sqlite, .sqlite3) in a directory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'explain', 'query', 'schema', and 'table_info' which perform different operations on databases rather than listing files. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone. This lack of explicit context reduces its helpfulness for tool selection.

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