pg_refresh_materialized_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes the readOnly blocking constraint, but omits important details like locking behavior, performance implications, or that CONCURRENTLY requires a unique index. For a mutation operation, 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 with two sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the constraint is added in the second sentence. All content is relevant.

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 absence of an output schema and the tool's potential impact (refresh replaces data), the description lacks completeness. It does not mention return value, side effects, or performance considerations. Context from sibling tools suggests this is a maintenance operation, but no guidance is provided.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds no value beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on any parameter meanings, constraints, or usage tips. The description merely restates the tool name.

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 action: 'Refresh a materialized view.' It also adds a specific condition about being blocked when readOnly mode is enabled, which further clarifies the tool's behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pg_list_materialized_views or pg_vacuum_analyze.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions a blocking condition but does not explain use cases, prerequisites (e.g., needing a unique index for concurrent refresh), or contrast with other maintenance tools.

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