Get logical replication status

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

The description explicitly says 'Never raises', which complements the readOnlyHint annotation. It also explains the behavioral trait that divergence between configured and effective wal_level indicates a pending reload, adding behavioral nuance beyond the annotations.

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: a single sentence stating purpose, a list of fields, a behavioral note, and an example call. No extraneous text. Every sentence adds value.

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 both annotations and output schema present, the description is more than adequate. It explains key return fields, how to interpret them, and provides a usage example. It covers all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 parameter description in the schema already provides adequate meaning. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already says about the database parameter.

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 verb ('Report') and the resource ('PG 19's on-demand wal_level flip usability'), and lists specific fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_current_wal_lsn or get_wal_archive_status by targeting the logical replication status.

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 explains when to use the tool (to check wal_level flip usability, detect pending ALTER SYSTEM reload) and provides interpretation guidance. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the context is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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