get_db_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the result is scoped to what the configured Impala user can see, and the optional pattern follows SQL LIKE semantics. This clarifies permission-related behavior and filter behavior not captured elsewhere.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, states the scope, and incorporates the parameter usage. Every word earns its place; 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 read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, the description covers what the tool does, its scope, and the filter semantics. An output schema exists to define return values, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 carry the burden for the 'pattern' parameter. It does: it explains the parameter is an optional SQL LIKE pattern, which communicates wildcard semantics implicitly. It doesn't provide concrete examples or mention case sensitivity, but the core meaning is sufficiently conveyed for an agent familiar with SQL.

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 verb ('List'), a specific resource ('databases'), and a clear scope ('visible to the configured Impala user'). It also mentions an optional filter, making the tool's exact function unambiguous and easily distinguishable from siblings like get_db_table_list or get_table_schema.

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 makes the use case clear: when you need to list all databases the current user can see. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the simple, well-defined scope gives the agent enough context to select this tool over table- or schema-focused siblings.

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