pgroonga_server_info

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

No annotations are present, and the description says nothing about side effects, read-only status, authentication requirements, or response behavior. The agent is left to infer that 'discover' is safe, but this is not explicitly stated.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. It is properly front-loaded with the action. Slight redundancy in 'feature capabilities' is minor and does not detract significantly.

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 simple zero-parameter info tool, the description is acceptable. It conveys the core purpose, and the output schema covers return values. However, it lacks use-case context and does not differentiate from the health tool, making it less complete than it could be.

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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The schema is empty, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details. A baseline of 4 is appropriate given the absence of parameters.

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 uses 'Discover' as a clear verb and specifies the resources: PostgreSQL, PGroonga, Groonga, and feature capabilities. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on search, indexes, or normalization.

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. It does not mention pgroonga_health or other relevant sibling tools that might overlap in purpose.

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