athena_list_databases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool only lists databases visible to a workspace, implying a read-only, workspace-scoped operation with no mutation. The 'visible to a workspace' phrasing also signals permission-based scoping. The output schema handles expected return-shape details.

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 minimal and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement followed by a single parameter note. Every sentence earns its place, and the action is front-loaded without redundant explanation.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description covers what the tool does, the scoping, and where the required parameter comes from. The output schema supplies return-shape details, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that workspace_id is the Athena workspace id and, more importantly, directs the caller to obtain it from athena_list_workspaces. This provenance hint is genuinely useful for invocation, though it stops short of describing value constraints or format.

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 opens with 'List Glue databases visible to a workspace,' which clearly specifies the verb (List), the resource (Glue databases), and the scope (visible to a workspace). It distinguishes itself from sibling Athena tools like athena_list_tables and athena_list_workspaces by naming databases rather than tables or workspaces.

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 clear context: this tool lists Glue databases for a workspace, and the workspace_id should come from athena_list_workspaces. It does not enumerate alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, but the purpose and the sourcing hint make the intended usage clear for this simple list operation.

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