autovacuum_status

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

The '[READ]' prefix indicates a read-only operation, but no annotations exist to confirm safety. The description does not disclose any side effects, permissions required, or additional behavioral traits. It only lists the output fields, leaving ambiguity about whether modifications occur.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose and two lines for parameters. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the read indicator and output summary. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description provides a high-level idea of the return values but lacks detail on formatting, pagination, or edge cases (e.g., what happens when limit is exceeded). Sibling tools like 'bloat_and_vacuum_analysis' may offer more comprehensive analysis, but the description does not differentiate or clarify completeness.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds clear explanations for both parameters: 'limit' as number of tables and 'target' as config name. This compensates for the schema gaps, though it does not specify if 'limit' is a maximum or exact count.

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 explicitly states it returns per-table dead tuples, modification counts, and last vacuum times. The name 'autovacuum_status' aligns with this, and it is clearly distinct from sibling tools like 'run_vacuum' or 'bloat_and_vacuum_analysis'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'bloat_and_vacuum_analysis' or 'run_vacuum'. The description only states what it does without context for selection.

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