Get repack status

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms it's a read-only check. The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the return object fields (available, server_version_num, etc.) and providing an example call. No contradictions.

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 and well-structured: it states the purpose upfront, then explains behavior, and ends with an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, behavior for different versions, return values, and an example. It is complete and self-contained.

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 sole parameter 'database' is well-documented in the input schema (100% description coverage). The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable since the schema is sufficient.

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's purpose: 'Report whether PG 19's in-server REPACK command is usable.' It specifies the context (PG 19), what it checks, and the return values. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a specific PG 19 feature.

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 that for PG < 19, it returns available=false with a diagnostic pointing to the pg_repack extension fallback. It also highlights the significance of the in-server REPACK CONCURRENTLY as a PG 19 operational win, guiding agents on when to use this tool. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but is clear.

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