crypto_postgresql_password_generator

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

The description mentions generating hashes in specific formats and outputs ready for pg_hba.conf. No annotations exist, so the description provides basic behavioral info but no details on side effects or permissions.

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 concise with two sentences and a reference to describe_tool. The inclusion of 'Menu ID: postgres_pass' is slightly extraneous but not harmful.

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?

The description covers supported formats and output use, but lacks parameter details and output format specifics. The reference to describe_tool reduces completeness. No output schema exists.

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?

No parameters are defined in the schema, but the description does not clarify expected inputs (e.g., password, username). The open schema (additionalProperties true) suggests the tool accepts some properties, but the description adds no guidance. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, but the lack of input clarification reduces the score.

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 generates PostgreSQL password hashes for MD5, SCRAM-SHA-256, and legacy formats, covering all PostgreSQL versions. It distinguishes from siblings like crypto_mysql_password_generator and crypto_password_generator by being specific to PostgreSQL.

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 only suggests using describe_tool for full guidance, but does not provide context or exclusions.

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