list_jumpserver_databases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that search filters by name or address, which is a behavioral hint beyond the schema. However, it doesn't mention pagination, limit behavior, or the structure of the response, though the output schema may cover the latter. The description does not contradict 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It includes the filtering option without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, and it's not under-specified—it covers the essential information in a compact form.

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 an output schema and robust annotations, the description is adequate. It specifies the action, resource, and filter behavior, and the existence of an output schema covers return details. The only gap is the lack of usage guidance relative to siblings, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor omission.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates significantly by explaining that the 'search' parameter filters by name or address. This gives meaning beyond the bare schema field. The 'limit' parameter is not described, but its default and integer type make it self-explanatory; overall, the description adds useful semantic value for the key parameter.

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 clear action ('List') and a specific resource ('JumpServer database assets'), making it distinct from sibling tools that deal with accounts or credentials. It also mentions an optional filter by name or address, which further clarifies scope. No ambiguity exists about what this tool accomplishes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings like list_jumpserver_database_accounts or get_jumpserver_configured_database_credentials. While the name implies its role, the rubric requires explicit alternatives or contexts, which are absent. A user must infer usage from the sibling names, not from the description.

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