get_wal_summarizer_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose a real behavioral trait: it degrades gracefully with a version notice on PG < 17 rather than erroring. The read-only nature is implied by 'Show/Display/Report' but never stated outright, and there is no mention of permissions or cost. Strong but not complete.

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 bracketed section headers make it easy to scan and the prohibitions are front-loaded at the end where they are still visible. It is somewhat verbose — multiple bullets restate the same 'monitor status' idea — but no sentence is pure filler.

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 only one optional parameter, the description does not need to explain return values, and it covers version gating and the fallback path. The one gap is that the prohibited use cases name no alternative tool, leaving the agent to guess where to route config-change or backup-execution requests.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single optional database_name parameter is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description never mentions the parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g. that omission targets the connected default database).

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+resource ('monitor WAL summarizer status') and scopes it to incremental backup support on PostgreSQL 17+, which clearly separates it from the sibling get_wal_status and get_replication_status. The enumerated functionality (process state, available summaries, summarize_wal config) makes the tool's identity 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?

It gives explicit trigger phrases ('WAL summarizer', 'incremental backup status'), three concrete use cases, and a 'Strictly Prohibited Use Cases' block excluding configuration changes and backup execution. This is exactly the when-to-use / when-not-to-use framing an agent needs.

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