pg_export_table_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions output formats but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like: whether this requires write permissions to the output path, if it overwrites existing files, performance implications for large tables, authentication needs via connectionString, or error handling. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to address important operational aspects.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is optimal for a basic description.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success/failure indicators, file metadata), doesn't cover important behavioral aspects (permissions, file overwriting, error conditions), and leaves most parameters unexplained. The conciseness comes at the cost of 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?

Schema description coverage is only 17% (1 of 6 parameters has a description). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions JSON/CSV formats (covered by the enum) but doesn't explain parameter semantics like what 'where' clause syntax to use, how 'limit' interacts with filtering, or the purpose of 'connectionString' beyond being a string. It doesn't compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Export') and resource ('table data') with specific output formats ('JSON or CSV format'). It distinguishes from siblings like pg_execute_query (which returns results directly) by focusing on file export, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from pg_copy_between_databases (which might also involve data movement).

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. It doesn't mention when to choose JSON vs CSV, when filtering/limiting is appropriate, or how it differs from siblings like pg_execute_query (which might return data without file export) or pg_copy_between_databases (which copies between databases).

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