列出库

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint (GET), such as pagination, output behavior, or handling of hidden databases, so it adds no value beyond annotations.

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?

A single sentence efficiently states the tool's purpose and endpoint. There is no wasted content, making it highly concise.

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 list tool with good annotations and schema, the description is adequate but misses usage guidelines and any note about return values or output format. Since there is no output schema, a bit more context would have made it more complete.

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 schema describes source_id and hide, covering 67% of parameters. The description does not add any parameter semantics; it only repeats the concept of 'specified data source' which is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses the verb '列表' (list) with the resource '数据库列表' and specifies '指定数据源下' (under a specified data source), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like yearning_list_sources and yearning_list_tables. The API endpoint reference further confirms the operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does and the endpoint, without exclusions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools.

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