pg_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as providing 'detailed information', 'comprehensive insights', and covering configuration, status, metrics, utilization, health, and capacity, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it lacks specifics on permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or output format details, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose ('Display detailed information about Heroku PostgreSQL databases') followed by usage scenarios. Each sentence adds value by elaborating on use cases and insights. It could be slightly more concise by avoiding repetition (e.g., 'detailed' and 'comprehensive' are somewhat redundant), but overall it's efficient.

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's complexity (information display with 2 parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, or output structure. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, which it does not, leaving room for improvement.

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%, with both parameters ('app' and 'database') well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter interactions or usage nuances). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 with specific verbs ('display', 'view', 'monitor', 'check', 'assess') and resources ('Heroku PostgreSQL databases', 'database configuration and status', 'performance metrics', 'connection and resource utilization', 'database health and capacity'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pg_backups, pg_credentials, pg_kill, etc., by focusing on comprehensive information display rather than backups, credentials, or management operations.

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 scenarios (e.g., 'when you need to: 1) View comprehensive database configuration and status...'), which gives clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., get_app_info for app-level details or pg_ps for process-specific info), which prevents a perfect score.

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