pg_analyze_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions analysis but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or has side effects, performance impact, required permissions, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool that interacts with a database.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse without unnecessary details.

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 complexity of database analysis, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis entails, potential impacts, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying analysis types, which the schema already covers with the enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Analyze') and resource ('PostgreSQL database configuration and performance'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like pg_debug_database or pg_monitor_database, which might have overlapping analysis functions, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like pg_debug_database and pg_monitor_database that could involve analysis, the description lacks any context or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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