get_replication_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; the word 'Monitor' and the prohibited mutation use cases make the read-only nature clear, and the return summary lists the status categories. It does not explicitly state permission requirements, rate limits, or a formal no-side-effects guarantee, but the behavioral profile is sufficiently clear for a zero-parameter status tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the bracketed sections are easy to scan. However, the functionality and returns sections repeat status/statistics content, and the structured headings add some verbosity. It remains appropriately sized for a monitoring tool.

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?

With an output schema present and zero parameters, the description supplies the needed purpose, usage boundaries, and return categories. It omits explicit routing guidance versus the sibling get_wal_status tool, leaving a small gap in context completeness.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter semantics because there are no inputs to explain.

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 names a specific verb and resource: monitor PostgreSQL replication status and statistics. The functionality list scopes this to replication connections, lag, WAL sender/receiver processes, and slots. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the related sibling tool get_wal_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?

It enumerates concrete required use cases such as replication status, standby lag, replication monitoring, diagnosing replication issues, and checking replication slot usage. It also gives strict prohibited use cases covering configuration changes, slot creation/deletion, and failover/switchover. The guidance is explicit, though it does not name a sibling alternative.

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