ecp_postgres_list_privileges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the listing is applied per-table across all tables in the public schema and also covers default privileges for future tables. This is useful context beyond the name. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, prerequisites (like user existence), or whether the operation is read-only. It is not misleading but leaves gaps about what the tool does or requires.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds essential scope detail. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function. No redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and scope. However, it omits guidance on output format or return values (though not strictly required without an output schema) and does not clarify parameter semantics. It also does not mention any error conditions or requirements. While adequate for a basic tool, the gaps in parameter clarity and usage context make it only partially complete.

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 fully explain the parameters. It mentions 'a Postgres user' and 'a database', which implies that db_username is the user and db_name is the database, but it does not explicitly map these to the parameter names or provide additional constraints, formats, or examples. For a low-coverage case, this is insufficient compensation; an agent might infer but lacks explicit clarity on what each parameter represents.

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 verb 'List' with a specific resource: 'a Postgres user's privileges on a database.' It further specifies scope as per-table in the public schema plus default privileges for future tables, which distinguishes it from other privilege tools and from similar tools for MySQL/MSSQL. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to use it instead of grant/revoke tools or note any conditions that would make this tool the right choice. The scope detail (per-table and default privileges) is behavioral, not usage guidance. Without any statement about context or alternatives, an agent has no guidance beyond the basic action.

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