Find blocking chains

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the specific source (pg_blocking_pids), the row structure (blocked, blocking), and the possibility of cycles. It warns to 'render with care', adding practical behavioral context.

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 three sentences, each adding essential information: the action and method, the row format, and a caution about cycles. It is concise without unnecessary details.

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 and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the core functionality and potential pitfalls (cycles). It does not explain rendering in detail, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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 50% (only database has a description). The description does not mention the limit parameter or its default, nor does it elaborate on the database parameter beyond the schema's own description. It adds no meaningful parameter semantics.

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 the tool returns (blocked, blocking) backend pairs using pg_blocking_pids. It specifies the resource (blocking chains) and the verb (return), and distinguishes from siblings like list_locks or walk_blocking_chains by focusing on pairs and cycles.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like walk_blocking_chains or list_locks. It implies its use for identifying blocking pairs via a specific method, but no exclusion or comparison is provided.

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