Show Replication Status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the return format (JSON/Markdown) and specific data fields (replicas, is_standby, lsn). No contradictions.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured into clear sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the 'Returns' section could be integrated more succinctly.

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 simple parameter set (1 optional param, 100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format and use case. It covers core aspects without major gaps.

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%, and the description adds modest value by explaining the return format differences. It does not elaborate further on the parameter's effect or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score.

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 it shows the status of all streaming replication standbys with replay lag. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., pg_active_queries, pg_connection_stats) by focusing specifically on replication health.

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 explicitly notes 'Only meaningful on a primary server with active streaming replication,' providing clear context. While it doesn't specify when not to use it, the condition is sufficient for a monitoring tool with no direct alternatives.

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