replication_slots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It mentions 'flagging inactive slots', but does not clarify what the flagging entails (e.g., warnings in output, side effects) or any authorization requirements. This is minimal disclosure for a diagnostic tool.

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 very short: one line for purpose and one line for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the key action and avoids any filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain the return format or what the tool outputs (e.g., a list of slots with status). It only mentions 'flagging inactive slots' without specifying the output structure. This leaves the agent guessing about the result.

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 parameter 'target' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description adds: 'Target name from config; omit for the default.' This explains that it's an optional config reference with a default behavior, which is a meaningful addition beyond the raw schema.

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 it is a read operation on replication slots, with the specific function of flagging inactive ones that retain WAL. This verb+resource combination is precise and distinguishes it from siblings like replication_status and wal_status.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as replication_status or wal_status. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for deciding between this and sibling tools.

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