Get skip scan status

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

The description adds rich behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: error handling (available=false on error), version-dependent behavior (PG ≤ 18 fallback), and exact return fields. No contradiction with 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, front-loads the main purpose, and includes an example. Every sentence provides value with no wasted 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?

The description covers behavior, return structure, error handling, and version dependencies. With an output schema present (assumed), the tool is well-documented. Minor omission: usage context relative to related recommendation tools.

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 input schema fully documents the optional 'database' parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics, so baseline score of 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 the tool's purpose: reporting whether B-tree skip-scan optimization is the planner default. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_pg19_ddl_status) by focusing on skip-scan, and includes version-specific behavior.

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 implies use when checking skip-scan support and provides version guidance, but does not explicitly compare to related tools like recommend_skip_scan_indexes. Lacks 'when not to use' or direct alternative references.

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