pg_credentials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions security compliance and maintaining secure access, it doesn't specify whether this tool performs read-only operations, mutations, or both. It doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential destructive effects. The description is too vague about actual behavior beyond the high-level purpose.

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 a clear opening statement followed by a numbered list of use cases and a concluding sentence. It's appropriately sized at three sentences, though the concluding sentence could be more specific. Every sentence contributes value without 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 complexity of credential management (potentially involving mutations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context but lacks behavioral details. It covers what the tool does and when to use it, but doesn't explain what operations actually occur, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. For a security-related tool with no structured safety information, this is minimally adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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's purpose as managing database access credentials and security, listing four specific functions (view, configure, rotate, set up monitoring). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pg_info or pg_backups by focusing on credential management rather than database information or backups. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 explicit usage guidelines with a numbered list of four specific scenarios when to use this tool: view credentials, configure permissions, rotate credentials, and set up monitoring access. This gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name exact alternatives among siblings.

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