pg_manage_query

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 disclosure. It mentions what each operation does but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like: whether operations require specific permissions, if reset_stats is destructive/irreversible, performance implications of analyze=true, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with potentially destructive operations (reset_stats) and complex behaviors, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence efficiently communicates the tool's scope and all four operations. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy. The structure clearly presents the operation-to-purpose mapping in a compact format.

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 tool's complexity (15 parameters, 4 distinct operations including potentially destructive reset_stats), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, doesn't warn about the destructive nature of reset_stats, doesn't mention prerequisites like pg_stat_statements extension, and provides minimal guidance on parameter interactions across different operations.

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 high (93%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it maps operation values to their purposes but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context about when to use specific parameters. The schema already documents most parameters well, so the description doesn't significantly enhance understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Manage PostgreSQL query analysis and performance' with specific operations listed (explain, get_slow_queries, get_stats, reset_stats). It distinguishes from siblings like pg_execute_query (execution) and pg_analyze_database (database-wide analysis) by focusing specifically on query-level performance analysis.

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 clear context for when to use each operation (e.g., 'operation="explain" for EXPLAIN plans'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention specific alternatives among siblings. The operational breakdown gives good guidance on selecting the right operation within this tool.

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