list_databases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only operation ('List') and hints at dependencies (endpoint from 'describe_cluster'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or pagination. It adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The structured sections (Args, Returns, Example) are helpful, but the example could be more concise. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though the formatting could be tighter.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return value with an example, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or behavioral constraints. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a tool with no structured safety or output information.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'cluster_id' and 'region_id' are IDs, and clarifies that 'endpoint' is a URL obtainable from 'describe_cluster' using 'connect_address'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints or examples for all parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all databases in the current cluster.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('databases'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_clusters' or 'list_collections' beyond the resource type. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling comparison.

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 implies usage by specifying the context ('current cluster') and referencing another tool ('describe_cluster') for obtaining the endpoint parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_clusters' or provide exclusions. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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