pg_monitor_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get real-time monitoring information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves any side effects. For a monitoring tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the tool's behavior, output format, or parameter usage, which are crucial for a monitoring tool with multiple configuration options. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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 low at 17%, with only the 'alertThresholds' object having descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'includeTables' or 'connectionString' entail in the context of monitoring. It fails to compensate for the poor schema coverage, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.

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 ('Get') and resource ('real-time monitoring information for a PostgreSQL database'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'pg_analyze_database' or 'pg_debug_database', which might also provide database insights, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 like 'pg_analyze_database' or 'pg_debug_database'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid connection string, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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