show_databases

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'List all databases available,' which implies a read-only operation but does not explain behavior around the optional server parameter, default server handling, output format, or potential limitations. For a tool with no structured behavioral metadata, this is a meaningful gap.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and the resource, making it easy to scan and parse.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain what 'available' means in relation to the optional server parameter or how this tool relates to list_servers. A sentence clarifying the server scope or expected usage would make it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the optional 'server' parameter and its default value. The description adds no additional meaning about how the parameter affects the result, but because the schema handles parameter semantics, a 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 a specific verb and resource: 'List all databases available.' This clearly identifies the operation and the object, and it is distinguishable from siblings like list_servers and list_tables because it explicitly names databases. It does not explicitly contrast with related tools, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 such as list_servers or list_tables. It does not mention any prerequisites like connecting to a server or explain whether this tool is the right choice for a given workflow. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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