autovacuum_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's '[READ]' tag merely restates that. Beyond the safety profile it discloses nothing behavioral: no ordering, no truncation semantics for limit, no cost/performance caveat for inspecting many tables, no indication of what a missing target does.

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?

Tight, front-loaded two-part structure with no filler sentences. The redundant '[READ]' prefix is the only wasted token, since readOnlyHint already covers it.

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?

With no output schema, the description does outline the returned columns, which is the main gap it needs to fill. It stops short of stating ordering, whether limit truncates the highest-risk tables, or the behavior for an unknown target, leaving an agent guessing about result shape for a two-param diagnostic tool.

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 load, and it largely does: limit is defined as the number of tables to inspect, and target is explained as a config target name whose omission yields the default. It misses only how limit interacts with result ordering/cutoff.

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?

Names a specific resource (autovacuum status) and enumerates the metrics returned: per-table dead tuples, mods-since-analyze, and last (auto)vacuum times. That is enough to distinguish it from run_vacuum/run_analyze, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the adjacent bloat_and_vacuum_analysis sibling.

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 statement of when to reach for this versus bloat_and_vacuum_analysis or the run_vacuum/run_analyze actions. The only usage-like guidance is that target may be omitted for the default, which is a parameter note rather than a usage rule.

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