Inspect guc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Read-only' note is confirmatory. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the fields returned (context, pending_restart, vartype) and the decision it supports (reload vs restart), which goes beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loads the return contents, then the usage coupling to alter_system, then a one-word safety tag. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with a full output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, the decision context, and the returned data. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, even if the field enumeration is mildly redundant with the output schema.

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 0%, so the schema provides no help; the description implies the lone parameter is the GUC name ('Inspect one PostgreSQL GUC'), which compensates partially. It adds no format or syntax guidance beyond that implication.

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?

States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (one PostgreSQL GUC via pg_settings), then enumerates exactly what is retrieved (live value, unit, context, pending_restart, vartype, ALTER SYSTEM applicability). This distinguishes it from audit_settings and the alter_system flow it references.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to use it before alter_system to determine whether a reload or restart is needed, naming the related tool and the condition that selects this one. Nothing is left to inference about when to reach for it.

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