Query PostgreSQL Configuration Settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds further transparency by explaining the 'context' field and categories, detailing where settings can be changed (internal, postmaster, sighup, user). No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with sections (Args, Returns, Common categories, Note) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise but includes necessary details; no redundant sentences. Minor room for trimming.

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?

The description thoroughly covers the tool's inputs, outputs, and behavioral context (context field and common categories). Since there is no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the return format and including useful notes. Slightly more could be added about the use of response_format, but overall complete.

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% (all parameters described in schema). The description adds value by providing concrete examples for name_pattern and category, and clarifying the meaning of modified_only and response_format. This extra detail justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 searches and inspects PostgreSQL runtime settings from pg_settings, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on configuration inspection, which is unique among the list.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools for modifying settings (e.g., pg_execute). The context field explanation is helpful but does not substitute for usage guidelines.

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