list_user_databases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation and the scope is disclosed. However, it does not address error conditions, pagination, authorization specifics, or what happens with an invalid project_id.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and includes the key optional filter. There is no unnecessary wording or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers the primary scope and filtering behavior, making it adequate for typical usage, though it does not mention edge cases like invalid project IDs or empty results.

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 one optional parameter (project_id) with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that the parameter optionally filters results to one project, providing meaningful context beyond the bare field title.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('databases') and scope ('authenticated user's'), plus an optional filter ('to one project'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list projects, nodes, registries, and other resources.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: to list the authenticated user's databases, with optional project filtering. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for basic selection.

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