security_check_rls_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the purpose. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or what 'RLS status' entails in the response. The optional parameter behavior is only present in the schema, not the tool description.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse. However, it omits contextual details that could be valuable in the same concise format.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what 'RLS status' means and what the caller should expect in the response. It also lacks usage context or connection to related tools, making it incomplete for a tool that appears to be a read-only diagnostic.

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 fully describes the single optional parameter table_name, including the behavior when omitted (lists all). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific meaning.

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 a specific action ('Check') on a specific resource ('RLS status for tables'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like security_enable_rls and security_disable_rls which are mutations. However, it is minimal and closely mirrors the tool name, adding only the 'for tables' scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not reference related tools such as security_list_policies or security_test_policy, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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