Get PgBouncer config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful detail that the config spans replicas and pool tunables, but says nothing about permissions, defaults, or failure modes on a nonexistent cluster.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and its contents front-loaded and zero filler. The trade-off is that it is a bare noun phrase that never states the action, making it slightly terse.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of naming what is returned (replicas, pool_mode, global pool tunables), and all three parameters are schema-documented. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool, missing only notes on behavior for missing clusters or namespaces.

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 100%, so name, context, and namespace are already documented in the schema. The phrase 'for a cluster' loosely ties to the required name parameter but adds no format or default detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource clearly (PgBouncer settings for a cluster) and enumerates the content returned: replicas, pool_mode, and global pool tunables. This separates it well from get_pg_parameters and get_cluster, though the verb is only implied by the name/title.

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 is a noun phrase with no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_pg_parameters or get_cluster. An agent must infer its place among the sibling read tools.

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