liara_list_databases

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. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't clarify whether this requires specific permissions, if it's rate-limited, what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON array of database objects), or if there are any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List all databases'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (a list operation with pagination parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., database metadata fields), how pagination works in practice, or any error conditions. For a tool that returns a list of resources, more contextual information is needed to guide effective use.

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, with all four parameters ('page', 'perPage', 'limit', 'offset') well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all databases in your Liara account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'liara_get_database' (singular retrieval) and 'liara_create_database' (creation). However, it doesn't specify the scope beyond 'all databases' (e.g., whether it includes deleted or archived ones), preventing a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention when pagination parameters should be used, how this differs from 'liara_get_database' for single database retrieval, or any prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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