Get WAL archive status

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

Discloses read-only, never raises, and security-sensitive omission of archive_command string (only boolean returned). Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, but description adds important behavioral details about error handling and data sensitivity.

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?

Every sentence is necessary: purpose, companion tool, security note, list of returned fields. Front-loaded with the core purpose. 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?

Given simplicity (1 optional param, read-only, output schema exists), description fully covers behavior, return fields, and use case. Lists all fields returned, including the health boolean logic.

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?

Description mentions the optional database parameter implicitly ('omit for the primary') and references list_databases, but the schema already provides a clear description (target secondary, omit for primary). With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no new semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Report' and resource 'WAL-archiving health' with clear scope: early-warning signal for failing archive_command/archive_library. Explicitly differentiates from sibling read_pg_wal_records by stating it covers WAL archive, not records.

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?

States it's a 'Companion to read_pg_wal_records' and explains the distinction (records vs. archive). Provides context for when to use (early-warning for failing archive) but does not explicitly list when not to use.

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