List table scans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, signaling safe, read-only behavior. The description adds the API endpoint and the specific data returned (sequential scans per table), which is useful but not critical. No contradictions.

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 three short sentences. The first sentence states the action, the second provides detail, and the third gives the API call. No redundant phrases, though the first two sentences partially repeat.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not explain the format or fields of the returned data (e.g., list of tables with scan counts). The openWorldHint annotation suggests variable output, but the description should still set expectations for a list tool.

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?

The only parameter, postgresId, has 0% schema description coverage. The description merely says 'by ID' without clarifying the ID's format or purpose. While the tool name and parameter name hint at a Postgres instance ID, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'List table scans' and specifies it returns 'the number of sequential scans performed against each table on a Postgres instance by ID.' The verb 'List' is precise, and the resource is well-defined. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like render_list_postgres_processes, though the focus on scans is implicit.

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 like render_list_postgres_top_queries or other monitoring tools. There is no discussion of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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