existdb_list_namespaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('Returns') and mentions the data source ('documentation cache'), but does not disclose potential edge cases, such as whether the filter parameter affects the summary, or any performance or caching behavior. The description adds some context but lacks richness in explaining side effects or limitations.

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 that is front-loaded with the action ('Returns'), concisely states the resource, and includes the two key attributes (prefix and count). Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or tangential information.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return features (summary table, prefix, count) and the data source. It does not explicitly mention the optional filter, but the schema covers that. It lacks explicit usage context and mentions no limitations, but the tool is simple enough that completeness is high.

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% for the single 'filter' parameter, with detailed enum descriptions for each category. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it does not improve on the existing semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a summary table of all available namespaces in the documentation cache, including prefix and count of documented functions. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('namespaces'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like existdb_list_namespace_functions, which likely lists functions for a given namespace.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It is purely descriptive without contextual 'when' or 'when not' guidance. Sibling tools are not referenced, so the agent is left to infer appropriate usage from the purpose alone.

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