Get PG 19 DDL status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds critical behavioral details: it never raises exceptions, driver errors are surfaced as available=false, and exact behavior on older PG versions. It also lists all return fields, providing complete transparency.

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 extremely concise: three sentences and an example. The first sentence states the purpose, the second covers error behavior, and the third explains fallback and lists return fields. No redundant information, clearly structured.

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 that an output schema exists, the description still usefully enumerates the return fields. It covers all important aspects: purpose, behavior on errors, behavioral differences across PG versions, and fallback guidance. The tool is simple, and the description fully covers it.

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?

There is one optional parameter (database) with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is adequate. The schema already explains its purpose and how to list databases. Baseline 3 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 specific PG19 DDL-dump functions are usable. It names the functions (pg_get_roledef(), etc.) and distinguishes from other status tools in the sibling list, such as get_pg19_partitions_status and get_pg19_stats_status, which have different purposes.

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 explicitly states that on PG≤18 it reports available=false and provides fallback commands (pg_dumpall with options). It also clarifies error behavior: driver-level errors surface as available=false, guiding the agent on how to handle failures. This provides clear when-to-use and fallback guidance.

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