Get AIO status

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

Exceeds annotations by describing error handling behavior (never raises, errors surface as available=false) and listing return fields. Annotations already indicate read-only, so description adds useful 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?

Concise: three sentences plus example. Front-loaded with purpose, then behavior and return fields. No unnecessary words.

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 presence of output schema implicit in description and high schema coverage, the description is complete for a status-check tool. It covers version behavior, error handling, and return fields. Could mention more about using the results, but not necessary.

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 schema description already explains the parameter. Description does not add additional meaning beyond the example usage, so baseline score is appropriate.

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 reports whether PG 19's async-I/O subsystem is usable, uses specific verb 'report' and resource 'AIO status', and distinguishes from siblings by providing fallback alternatives for older versions.

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?

Explicitly says for PG < 19 returns available=false and points to alternative tools (read_pg_stat_io, run_maintenance). Also clarifies that errors are handled gracefully without raising.

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