Check segment health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds significant context: it explains the specific behavior (walking gp_segment_configuration), return format (per-segment with aggregated counts), and the edge case of returning `available=false` on vanilla PG. No contradiction.

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 concise (4 sentences), well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes an example call. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary repetition.

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 has an output schema (not shown but signaled), the description covers all necessary aspects: main functionality, output details, edge case, and example. It is complete for a simple health-check tool with one optional parameter.

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 single parameter `database` is fully described in the input schema (optional, target secondary DB). The description adds the helpful instruction 'Call list_databases to see the configured ids', which aids agent understanding beyond the schema.

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 it walks `gp_segment_configuration` to surface MPP segment posture, details the output fields (status, mode, role vs preferred_role, top-level counts), and distinguishes its read-only nature and behavior on vanilla PG. This is specific and avoids confusion with sibling tools like `check_database_health`.

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 implies usage for MPP segment health checking via `gp_segment_configuration` and mentions top-level summary for quick branching. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the niche is clear given sibling tools. A slight improvement would be to add a note like 'not for single-node PG'.

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