get_autovacuum_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing behavioral traits: it's a monitoring/analysis tool (not for control/modification), specifies time period defaults and limits (24h default, max 168h, limit 1-100), and mentions environmental dependency (POSTGRES_DB env var). It doesn't cover rate limits or auth needs, but provides substantial context.

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 well-structured with clear sections ([Tool Purpose], [Exact Functionality], etc.), but somewhat verbose with repetitive phrasing ('autovacuum' appears 15 times). Each sentence earns its place, but could be more concise while maintaining clarity.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, analysis functionality), no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, exclusions, parameters, and behavioral context adequately for the agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 4 parameters: database_name (target database with env var fallback), schema_name (scope with default behavior), hours_back (time period with default and max), and limit (range and default). It adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('monitor', 'track', 'analyze', 'show', 'calculate', 'identify') and resources ('autovacuum and autoanalyze activity patterns and execution history'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_autovacuum_status' by focusing on patterns and history rather than current status.

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 explicit guidance with 'Required Use Cases' (e.g., monitoring performance, troubleshooting scheduling) and 'Strictly Prohibited Use Cases' (e.g., process control, configuration modifications). It clearly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives for related tasks.

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