pg_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs a live SELECT 1 health check and that using the profile arg does not change the sticky session. This gives important non-obvious behavior even without an annotation layer.

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?

Two sentences deliver the tool's core action, the state elements, and the key exception about optional profile behavior. No filler, well-front-loaded.

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 status tool with two optional parameters fully documented in the schema, the description fully captures what the tool does and the nuance of the optional profile. No output schema exists, but the listed return fields (profile, host, database, write mode, health) give the agent a complete picture of the response.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description additionally clarifies the sticky-session behavior of the profile parameter, adding context beyond the schema's technical format.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'Show' and lists the exact state being displayed (profile, host, database, write mode, SELECT 1 health check). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like pg_set_profile, which changes the profile, and pg_query, which runs queries.

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 explains the optional profile argument for a one-shot check without altering the sticky session, which implies when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for typical status-check usage.

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