MCP PostgreSQL Operations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (retrieves table lists with metadata), what it doesn't do (prohibited use cases), and the default behavior when database_name is omitted (uses currently connected database). However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, error conditions, or pagination behavior.

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.) and front-loaded key information. While somewhat verbose with section headers, every sentence adds value and there's no redundant information. The structure helps with quick scanning.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but has output schema), the description provides comprehensive coverage. It explains purpose, functionality, use cases, prohibitions, parameter semantics, and return format. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values, making this complete for the context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the single parameter's purpose ('Database name to query') and default behavior ('uses currently connected database if omitted'), adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format requirements or constraints for the database_name parameter.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose as 'Retrieve list of all tables and their information from specified database' with specific details about what information is included (schema, owner, size, table types). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_table_schema_info (detailed column info) and get_table_size_info (size only).

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 'Required Use Cases' (table list requests, understanding database structure, needing size/owner info) and 'Strictly Prohibited Use Cases' (data inside tables, structure changes, detailed column info). This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_table_schema_info for column details.

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