Get PostgreSQL parameters

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

Annotations provide no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the source of the parameters and the Patroni behavior that makes that source authoritative, but it does not describe the return format, whether defaults are included, or error behavior. The 'Get' in the title implies a read operation, but the description adds only minimal behavioral context.

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?

One tightly written sentence that front-loads the key resource and adds a valuable Patroni behavior note without waste. Every phrase earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 getter with fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It states what is returned (tuned PostgreSQL parameters), where they come from, and why that source is correct. Without an output schema, it could be more explicit about the response shape, but the essence is covered.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%: name, context, and namespace all have descriptions. The description adds contextual information about the source spec path but does not explain parameter usage, defaults, or how name maps to the cluster. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles the parameters and the description does not compensate further.

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 identifies the resource as the tuned PostgreSQL parameters from a specific spec path, distinguishing it from generic cluster getters. The title reinforces the get operation, so an agent can tell this tool apart from sibling tools like get_cluster or list_pg_clusters.

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 gives useful context: parameters must come from spec.patroni.dynamicConfiguration.postgresql.parameters, because direct postgresql.conf edits are reverted. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions such as 'use get_pg_cluster for full CR details'. The usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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