inspect_walsenders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly describes the tool as deterministic and read-only, and lists the specific data it retrieves. It does not mention any potential impacts or authorization needs, but these are minimal for a read-only system view query.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema is present, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, what it reads, where to run it, and its deterministic nature. It is complete for a monitoring tool.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what is inspected, compensating for the lack of parameters.

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 inspects active walsender connections and their lag. It specifies the exact fields and source (pg_stat_replication). The verb 'inspect' combined with the resource 'walsender connections' is specific and distinct from sibling tools like advance_slot or diagnose_stuck_subscription.

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 provides clear context: it should be run on the PUBLISHER, is deterministic, and reads a system view. However, it does not explicitly exclude when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings. This is a minor gap.

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