List Databases

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful return semantics (s3_storage metadata, null = inherits cluster default) and a security guarantee ('credentials are never returned'). It omits auth/permission requirements and rate-limit or pagination behavior, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Well front-loaded with a bold 'Purpose' line and organized into Returns/When-to-use sections; every block carries information. Slightly verbose with its header scaffolding, but nothing is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly assumes responsibility for explaining return values, and it does so including the s3_storage nuance. Given zero required params and full schema coverage, this is nearly complete; only auth/prerequisite-permission context is missing.

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% and both parameters (cluster, organization) are already documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List databases') plus the scope ('in a RawTree organization and cluster'), which is more precise than the name alone. An agent can distinguish it from list-tables, list-clusters, and delete-database without opening a schema.

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 'When to use' section gives concrete triggering conditions, including the prerequisite relationship ('need a database name before using query, table, ingest, or log tools'). It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or naming a sibling alternative, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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