mysql_list_databases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a meaningful behavioral nuance by stating 'current user can see', indicating permission-based filtering and implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm safety, side effects, or output format, leaving some gaps for a tool without annotation support.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and scope. Every word contributes to meaning, and there is no redundancy or 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose and the user-visibility constraint. It does not detail the output structure, but the phrase 'list databases' naturally implies a list of names. A small gap is the lack of distinction from overlapping siblings, but overall the description is complete for its simplicity.

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% with a clear explanation of the optional 'alias' parameter. The tool description itself adds no parameter detail, but since the schema fully documents the one parameter, the baseline 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 states a specific action ('List') with a clear resource ('databases') and a scope qualifier ('the current user can see'), which unambiguously identifies the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling 'mysql_get_all_schemas', which likely serves a similar purpose, so it falls short of a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'mysql_get_all_schemas' or 'mysql_show_tables'. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or situations where another tool would be preferred, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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