get_wal_status

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 the tool's behavior by listing what it monitors (e.g., WAL location, archiving status, statistics) and explicitly prohibits write operations. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like performance impact or data freshness, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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.), making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized for the complexity, but some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Returns' section repeats functionality). Every sentence adds value, though minor trimming could improve conciseness.

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 (monitoring WAL status), no annotations, an output schema exists, and 0 parameters, the description is complete. It covers purpose, functionality, use cases, prohibitions, and return values, providing sufficient context for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly without relying on structured fields.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics beyond the schema, but this is appropriate since there are no parameters. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the parameter-less case without unnecessary details.

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 'Monitor WAL (Write Ahead Log) status and statistics' with a clear verb ('Monitor') and resource ('WAL status and statistics'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on WAL monitoring rather than connections, tables, replication, or other database metrics, making the scope unambiguous.

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., when user requests WAL status, diagnosing replication lag) and 'Strictly Prohibited Use Cases' (e.g., WAL configuration changes, manual WAL switching). This clearly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools, the use cases implicitly differentiate it from other monitoring tools.

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